Arliemoor Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment, we rated this key question good. At this assessment, the rating has changed to requires improvement. The provider did not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person-centred care, dignity, and good governance.

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.

The provider did not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

People were supported by managers and staff who demonstrated kindness, patience, and respect. Staff showed an understanding of people’s individual needs and personalities, and they spoke about people with compassion. However, people’s rights to privacy and dignity were not always protected, and staff and managers did not consistently recognise the impact of their actions on people’s dignity. For example, people’s washing was left drying in communal areas, which meant individuals’ underwear was visible to visitors and other people living at the service. This did not respect people’s privacy or dignity.

The care environment was not treated with the care it deserved in terms of recognising it was people's home. For example, the provider treated the service as their family home, and people living at the service were treated as guests. This resulted in the main lounge being used as an extension of the provider’s personal living space. Although we were told that people could still use this area, the provider explained that people were expected to be respectful of this space and remain quiet while they were watching television. This restricted people’s freedom to use communal areas freely and undermined their rights to privacy, choice, and independence within their own home. This contributed to a breach of regulation relating to person-centred care, dignity and good governance.

People who wished to share their views with us said they liked living at the service and the staff supporting them.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

People did not consistently receive individualised care and support that was flexible or responsive to their needs. Staff did not always demonstrate a clear understanding of people’s needs or preferences. Support plans lacked sufficient detail and did not consistently reflect people’s strengths or clearly describe the support staff were required to provide. As a result, care was not always tailored to meet people’s individual needs or preferences.

Staff demonstrated an understanding of the need to respect people’s privacy and confidentiality. They described how they would seek people’s consent before sharing information about their care and support. However, this understanding was not consistently reflected in practice.

We found that people’s personal records were not stored securely or confidentially. For example, medication administration records and daily notes were left on a kitchen work surface where people and others could easily access them. This practice failed to protect people’s personal information and did not respect their right to privacy or dignity.

The provider did not have effective governance systems to ensure that confidential records were handled and stored appropriately. This contributed to a breach of regulation relating to person-centred care, dignity and good governance.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

People were not consistently supported or encouraged to maintain or develop their independence. Although support plans identified what people were able to do for themselves, they lacked clear, detailed guidance for staff on how to actively support people to maintain existing skills or develop new ones where possible. Support plans did not clearly set out how staff should work with people to promote independence, choice, and autonomy, which increased the risk of people being over-dependent and prevented opportunities for personal development.

Managers described how they knew people well and how people were supported to exercise choice and control over their lives and express their views about the care and support they received. However, this information was not consistently or formally recorded within people’s care records. There was limited evidence to demonstrate that people’s views, preferences, and aspirations were used to inform care planning or to shape how support was delivered in practice. This contributed to a breach of regulation relating to person-centred care.

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Although managers and staff demonstrated that they knew people well, this knowledge was not consistently reflected within care documentation. Support plans did not always provide clear or sufficient guidance on how to support people to manage their physical or mental health, or how to minimise distress should a person’s mental health deteriorate or they experience a relapse. Risk management plans were either incomplete or did not consistently include clear information about early warning signs, known triggers, or the specific actions staff should take if a person became unwell.For example, where people had been diagnosed with diabetes, staff had not been provided with adequate guidance on how to deliver effective diabetes care or respond to changes in people’s health. As a result, staff were required to rely on their personal knowledge of people rather than robust, evidence‑based care planning. This increased the risk that care and support would be inconsistent or unsafe and contributed to a breach of regulations relating to person‑centred care.

Managers and staff understood how to make referrals or escalate concerns when required. However, staff told us they sometimes experienced difficulties in accessing timely support from external agencies. One staff member said, “The problem we have is that when something goes wrong, we struggle to get help externally. We work well as a team internally, but sometimes we have to wait days to get support. It can be really difficult.”

The provider cared about the well-being of their staff. However, they had not recognised the impact that stepping back from day‑to‑day management without an effective continuity plan had on staff morale, leadership and oversight of the service. Without exception, staff spoke positively about working for the provider and described a strong sense of loyalty and belonging. Comments included: "I love it here – it is like a family, and we have all known each other so long," "I absolutely love it; it is just a lovely vibe and one big family," and "I really love my job. I thoroughly enjoy it and I love working with the clients."

However, senior staff were struggling to cope and appeared visibly overwhelmed. They told us they were unable to consistently locate essential records, access funds required to meet day‑to‑day running costs, make decisions or drive necessary improvements within the service. Following the inspection, the provider told us, "Most small businesses are on tight budgets, and Arliemoor is no exception. However, apart from major renovation, there is enough money to run the business and allow treats and trips out in the community for the people that live here, such as shopping, cafes, cinema etc.

Staff did not receive regular supervision and were not supported to develop the skills required for their personal and professional growth. Several staff told us they felt unable to raise concerns or contribute meaningfully to the running and future direction of the service. Comments included: "We have felt frustrated by not being able to move forward" and "Yeah, definitely improvements could be made everywhere, really." This contributed to a breach of regulation relating to staffing and good governance.