Arbory Residential 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 remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff had a good understanding of what person-centred care meant in practise. One staff member said, “For me it’s more that every resident is different from each other. I have to see their care plan and what they like. It’s not a routine that we do the same things for everyone every day.”

People and their relatives told us they felt staff knew people, their life stories and preferences. One person’s relatives said, “The staff do have dementia knowledge and they certainly know [name] very well.” One person told us, “The staff are lovely, I can’t fault them really. They help me with what I need but I still try to wash and dress myself.”

Although some of the care plans we looked at were person centred and included information for staff on people’s choices and preferences, this was not consistent. For example, in one person’s plan, information in relation to their moving and handling needs was contradictory. However, in other plans, we saw detailed information for staff. Despite the inconsistencies, staff we spoke with demonstrated a good knowledge of people and how they preferred to be supported.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The manager told us worked in partnership with health and social care professionals to ensure care was joined up. We saw visiting health professionals at the service, and those we spoke with, said the service liaised well with them, and worked with them to improve services for people.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People’s communication needs were assessed and when people experienced difficulties with hearing or speech for example, the care plans we looked at were generally informative and clear. Staff knew which people needed additional support with communication and were able to tell us how they met people’s communication needs, including for example, recognising facial expressions and assessing people for pain. We saw that staff used wipe boards to communicate with some people.

There was limited signage throughout the home which did not always support people to find their way around safely and independently. We fed this back to the management team who told us this had been identified and new signage had been ordered. After the inspection, we were provided with assurance that signage had arrived at the service.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

Regular resident meetings were held, and we saw minutes of these which showed good attendance. The manager told us they were planning to have a display of ‘’you said, we did’ so that people were kept informed of actions taken. One person’s relative told us, “They do have regular relatives and residents Meetings. I didn’t go to the last one, but I can see that [provider] have got most things right now.”

Relatives’ surveys were carried out, and we reviewed some of the latest responses. Feedback was sought from people about meals. The chef told us “We talk to the residents and family members as well. We had a meeting the other day with the activities staff talking about meal ideas and what resident like and don’t like.”

Complaints were logged, investigated and responded to. The provider adhered to their duty of candour responsibilities. People and their relatives told us they knew how to raise concerns and were confident they would be taken seriously.

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

People’s needs were assessed before they moved to the service and when people’s needs changed, records showed staff had referred people for appropriate specialist support and advice. For example, people had been referred to the falls team or dietician.

The environment supported accessibility for people, with wide corridors fitted with handrails and adapted toilets and bathrooms. As well as large communal areas, there were smaller seating areas for those people who preferred a quieter space. All areas within the service and the garden were wheelchair accessible.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff received training in equity, diversity and human rights to help them understand equality and address discrimination. Care plans included information about what was important to people, such as family relationships, social interests, and spiritual needs.

At the time of our inspection, nobody was receiving end of life care. However, we did not see that advanced care plans were consistently in place which meant that there was not always a record of people’s choices and preferences for end-of-life care. This included those people who might have specific cultural or spiritual requests. We fed this back to the management team who advised this was an area they were working on. The manager told us they were working with people and relatives to make conversations around death and dying easier. For example, we saw that end-of-life workshops were offered for families to take part in.

Staff were provided with end of life training from the local palliative care team and told us they felt trained and comfortable to support people and their families with end-of-life care.