Ardent Residential Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

The service was not well-led and continues to be rated requires improvement. We identified 5 breaches of regulation at this assessment which included continued breaches in relation to safe environments and good governance. The provider had continued to fail to implement effective governance and accountability processes. Quality assurance measures were not robust and had not been effective in identifying concerns and prompting action to improve the service. There was limited understanding of how to make and sustain required improvements. The lack of competent, effective leadership at the service has led to serious failings in relation to cleanliness and safety of the environment, safe care and treatment, medicines management, ensuring people’s rights were protected and governance systems and process at the service.

This service scored 50 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff told us they felt that they were all working well as a team to provide good care to people. One staff member told us, “The team are gelled, and I feel staff work together and have a good relationship with each other.”

The provider spoke about their vision for the future of the service and told us they wanted to make the improvements necessary to provide good care. However, we found there was a lack of understanding from the leadership team of how to safely care for people as well as a lack of understanding of the relevant regulations.

Ardent Residential Care Home’s objectives outlined in their statement of purpose was to provide a high-quality level of care aiming for excellence by going above any minimum standards. However, we found the provider’s lack of oversight, support and robust governance systems meant that staff were not able to demonstrate the providers aims and objectives and people did not always receive safe care.

People’s care plans were inaccurate and did not provide staff with sufficient guidance to enable them to safely meet people’s needs. In addition, monitoring records had not been completed consistently and did not demonstrate people’s needs had always been met.

Staff told us they felt supported by the trainee deputy manager. One staff member commented, “[Trainee deputy manager’s name] is trying his best but I think we need a manager. We need that little more guidance. I think every home should have a manager making sure things are getting done.”

The provider told us they had experienced challenges with recruiting a new manager since the last registered manager had left. At the time of the assessment, they were actively recruiting for a new manager.

We could not be assured leaders had the necessary skills and knowledge to ensure people were provided with continued effective and safe care.

The provider and leaders at the service did not demonstrate an understanding of the regulations or the legislation underpinning the regulations. There was a lack of robust oversight and quality assurance processes in place which had resulted in an unsafe environment for people to live in and unsafe care.

At the time of the assessment there was no registered manager in place at the service. The service was being managed on a daily basis by a trainee deputy manager who was new in post and had limited experience on how to manage a care service. There were no clear processes in place for upskilling the newly appointed deputy manager.

In the absence of a registered manager, we found there was a lack of day-to-day support by the provider. This meant that the concerns we found had not been identified.

The provider had failed to ensure staff received quality training they needed to do their jobs safely.

These concerns contributed to the breach of regulation in respect of good governance.

Staff told us they felt comfortable to speak with the trainee deputy manager and provider if they had concerns or wanted to make suggestions.

There were processes in place to support staff to raise concerns and make suggestions to improve care. Staff meetings took place and there was a whistle-blowing procedure in place for staff to follow.

Staff we spoke with told us they felt supported, included and were treated well.

The service had an equality diversity policy and staff received equality and diversity as part of the service’s mandatory training.

The trainee deputy manager told us that since the last manager had left the service, they had completed some routine governance including audits and check, but this had not been consistent.

The provider told us they did not have checks in place to ensure managers and staff at the service were giving safe care and the environment people lived in was safe and well maintained.

Staff told us they understood their roles and responsibilities and who they reported to. Staff recognised that leadership support was lacking and what impact this had on day-to-day care.

Systems and processes to monitor care and safety of the service were either not in place or not robust enough to identify the serious failings we identified at this assessment.

Environment checks and infection prevention and control audits had not identified the concerns with the environment.

Care plan audits and checks in place to ensure people’s care plans contained enough information to protect them from the risk of unsafe care and were reflective of their care needs, were not effective or robust. The variability in the quality and consistency of record keeping meant that the provider could not be confident that people were receiving the care and treatment they required. Gaps in record keeping meant people were at increased risk of harm from skin damage, falling and choking.

Policies were in place to guide and support staff. However, these were not always followed in practice to ensure best practice was followed. For example, the provider had failed to ensure staff were sufficiently knowledgeable about the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and were following their policy in relation to MCA assessments and best interests’ decisions.

The provider had not ensured staff received adequate training and support, therefore staff had failed to identify the concerns.

People and their relatives did not always feel they had sufficient support from the service to access health professionals when needed. We also found that people were not supported to access their local community as reported in the effective section of this report.

Staff told us they worked well with healthcare providers and referred people to external health professionals for support and guidance.

Prior to the assessment we did not receive any information of concern from health professionals involved with the service.

Since the assessment the provider had engaged positively with local authority and health professionals to ensure the safety of people living at the service. Based on our findings and information provided during feedback, an action plan was developed detailing immediate changes within the service and this plan was shared with the commission and partners.

The provider and managers at the service did not demonstrate a proactive approach to learning from previous concerns raised.

Staff told us they were not always provided with one-to-one supervision to reflect on any learning opportunities.

The provider has failed to operate robust governance systems to ensure continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the service. Since registration the service has been inspected five times and rated requires improvement consecutively with continued breaches of regulation.