Arliemoor Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs. At our last assessment, we rated this key question good. At this assessment, the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

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

This service scored 61 (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 make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People were not truly involved or seen as partners in their care. There was limited information to demonstrate how staff were engaging with people in understanding their rights, supporting them to have increased opportunities, or enabling them to make informed decisions. For example, managers were reviewing people’s support plans and risk assessments. There was no information to indicate how people were supported to take part in these reviews, or to show how their views/wishes had been sought or used to inform their ongoing care and support.

While staff knew people well, the information provided to staff was inconsistent. Some care and support plans were not sufficiently detailed and contained minimal guidance for staff on how to care for people safely, according to their preferences and wishes. Others contained a good level of detail as described within the safe, effective and caring sections of this report. This contributed to a breach of regulations relating to person‑centred care and good governance.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities.

People received care from a range of appropriate health professionals to meet their individual needs and were supported to attend appointments as required. Support plans identified which professionals were involved in each person’s care and staff understood how and to whom they should escalate changes in people’s needs or how to make referrals to relevant health services. However, we found that referrals were not always made promptly, which meant people did not consistently receive prompt access to the support they required. Managers told us they were keen to work collaboratively with external agencies to promote a consistent and coordinated approach to care, but they did not always feel adequately supported by those agencies. This sometimes impacted the timeliness and/or effectiveness of joint working arrangements.

People were not always involved in a meaningful way in the development of their care and support; however, information was provided in a way which met people’s individual communication needs.

Managers understood the importance of meeting people’s communication needs. Support plans identified each person’s preferred methods of communication and included information on how they should be supported to understand and access information effectively. For example, one person’s family’s first language was not English. Managers explained how this person was supported to maintain communication with their relatives through the involvement of a local Orthodox priest, who helped facilitate communication in a way that met the person’s and their family’s needs.

This approach helped to ensure people’s communication needs were known and met in line with the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). The AIS is a framework, making it a legal requirement for all providers to ensure people with a disability or sensory loss can access and understand the information they are given.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

There was limited evidence to demonstrate how staff supported people to have control over their lives or how they were actively involved in decisions about the care and support they received. People were not routinely encouraged to share their views through regular reviews or meetings, which limited opportunities for them to engage with how support was planned and delivered.

The provider did not have a formal process in place to seek feedback from people, relatives, staff, and external professionals about the quality and safety of the service. Managers told us that because the provider lived at the service, they were regularly available and engaged informally with people, staff, and visitors about people’s care and support needs. However, managers were unable to demonstrate how feedback was analysed, responded to, or used to drive service improvements. As a result, the provider could not demonstrate that people’s views and experiences were actively considered or used to improve the quality of care. This contributed to breaches of regulations relating to person‑centred care and good governance.

People told us they were aware of how to make a complaint should they wish to do so. One person said, “I would talk to the [Manager’s name] if I need to.” Managers were unable to locate any records relating to the management of concerns or complaints but told us they had not received any complaints in the last twelve months.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Managers explained how they worked with other professionals to ensure people had equal access to care and people were supported to access external healthcare professionals, where required. However, managers told us they did not always feel adequately supported by some external agencies, which at times affected the timeliness and coordination of support available to people. This potentially impacted people’s experiences and outcomes.

Staff knew how to contact health or social care professionals for support. For example, where appropriate, people also had access to independent advocates to help ensure their voices were heard.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

Managers and staff understood that people had the right to be treated equally and fairly and to receive care and support that met their individual needs. The service promoted inclusion, respected people’s diversity, and welcomed individuals of all faiths, cultures, and belief systems. We found no evidence to suggest that people protected under the Equality Act were discriminated against. The Equality Act protects people from discrimination on grounds such as disability, sexual orientation, race, religion, and gender.

However, as outlined in the Safe, Effective, and Caring sections of this report, staff were not always provided with sufficient or accurate information about people’s assessed needs. In addition, staff did not always receive the appropriate training required to ensure they had the knowledge and skills to support people effectively or recognise and respond to any inequalities or barriers people may face.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their lives.

Most people living at Arliemoor were young adults and did not have life‑limiting conditions. As a result, end‑of‑life care planning had not been formally discussed with them. However, managers described how staff had recently supported a person at the end of their life. They explained how the person’s wishes were sensitively explored and recorded, and how staff worked with the palliative care team to ensure the individual received care that met their needs and respected their preferences.