Arbour Court

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 outstanding. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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.

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.

We found that whilst staff knew people well, care plans did not always contain enough guidance to support staff to manage people’s known risks. We found some examples where details around how to manage a person’s distress or falls risk were lacking. We noted one person had labels on their drawers to help them locate items of clothing, however it was not evident that staff maintained the drawers to ensure expected items were where they should be. There were several people within the home who liked to keep busy, and whilst staff knew how to engage these people with daily tasks which allowed them to rest, this was not seen on any of the days of our site visit.

Some people had ‘conversation clouds’ in their bedrooms which informed staff on areas of interest and important people to that person, to aid conversation and engagement. The registered manager intended to implement frames to ensure these records were secured within people’s bedrooms. The registered manager also intended to reintroduce memory boxes within people’s rooms to support reminiscence.

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.

Staff knew people well and understood how to support people. The registered manager showed a good understanding of how to meet the needs of people living with dementia. There appeared to be good working relationships with other health care professionals and the home supported regular ward rounds with the local doctor’s surgery.

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

The provider had suitable policies in place to ensure information about the service was readily available to people and families. The provider was able to adapt information to various formats where this was needed. At the time of our visit there was limited evidence as to how adapted format and pictorial information were being used within the home.

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

The provider had a variety of ways in which people and families could provide feedback. The registered manager had an open door policy and families told us they felt able to speak to them about any issues or concerns and felt confident that this matter should be addressed. The provider had completed surveys with families and staff and the feedback from these was positive. The activity team led resident and family meetings and, whilst these were not always well attended, worked with people to seek feedback in relation to activities.

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

The provider ensured people had access to services such as optician, podiatrist and hairdressing services on a regular basis. People and families were very confident that the provider would arrange for support where this was needed and the registered manager had examples of how they had overcome barriers to access treatment in some areas, including where a risk of an outbreak had been identified. However, it was less evident how people were supported to access hearing assessments where this might be needed. One person had lost their hearing aids during a visit to hospital and it was unclear whether action had been taken to support new hearing aids to be obtained, or if this was no longer appropriate.

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

The activity team worked hard to ensure people with limited mobility, or who chose to stay in their bedrooms, had access to activities and stimulation. The activity team had access to technology which enabled them to support people in their bedrooms to play virtual games such as darts or the piano. The activity team were able to efficiently engage people in activities such as crafts, baking and flowering arranging and were committed to creatively supporting people with any ideas or wishes they had. At the time of our site visit the activities were primarily taking place on site but plans were being considered to look at trips out and support people to access the community. However, we found some indication that people were not supported with positive risk taking on occasions, for examples when celebrating a Spanish theme day only an alcohol free sangria was provided for people to enjoy.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, including at the end of their life.

During our site visit we found one person who was receiving end of life care. Staff showed a good understanding of the support people needed and the use of anticipatory medicines However this person’s end of life care plan lacked detail about how they wished to be supported at the end of life and was task orientated. Where people had said they did not wish to have these discussions these appeared to be respected, but it was not clear how often these discussions had been revisited with people or families to ensure clear plans for care were in place before they were needed. The service had received lots of positive feedback from families whose relatives had received end of life care at the service, and we noted examples where people had been admitted to the home for end of life care but had greatly improved.