Arbour Court

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

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

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 had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

The provider had several processes to engage with people, families and their staff team and create a shared direction and plan for the home including meetings and surveys. Relative meetings were in place but were not always well attended, and the activity workers sought feedback and input from people through regular one to one conversation. The registered manager was very responsive to the feedback given and took immediate action to address any areas of concern we raised with them.

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

People, families and staff all spoke highly of the registered manager and unit managers and felt able to speak with them about any concerns. The registered manager told us they had an open door policy and gave us examples of how they supported people, families and staff. We observed positive relationships within the staff team.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

There were processes in place to allow people and families to raise concerns. Families told us the registered manager was very approachable and addressed any concerns they had immediately. Staff told us they felt able to raise concerns and felt well supported in their roles, although we had received an anonymous concern prior to our site visit. The registered manager told us they had an open door policy and we noted throughout the inspection that staff and families would speak to them about a range of matters. These were not always documented to ensure evidence that concerns were investigated or enable analysis of any themes or trends, and we discussed this further with the registered manager.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

The provider had a multi-cultural staff team and valued and celebrated these cultures through world culture days. Staff told us they felt valued and well-treated. The provider had a range of workforce initiatives to support the team and encourage further training for staff. The provider arranged additional training for staff who championed different areas of care and had an employee of the month scheme to recognise and celebrate good practice.

The provider did not always have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability or good governance. They did not always act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate.

There were a range of systems of checks and oversight. Where areas for improvement had been identified there was some evidence that action had been taken, for examples in relation to record keeping. However, this action had not yet been fully embedded and we found some shortfalls in the accuracy and maintenance of records. The provider had a resident of the day scheme to ensure care plans were reviewed regularly. Whilst records indicated reviews were happening, there was limited evidence to show this was robustly completed. We found areas of conflicting information and care plans needed further detail to ensure appropriate guidance for staff on how to manage people’s needs and risk and ensure care was personalised.

There were regular meetings, focusing on clinical risk and oversight of people’s nutritional needs and risk of weight loss to ensure appropriate action had been taken.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.

The provider held events which were open to the local community, including cake sales and an Easter fayre. Children from local schools were invited to participate. The home worked with schools and children would come and visit the home at Christmas to sing carols. There were links to local faith groups and people were supported to access prayer sessions if they wished.

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contributed to safe, effective practice and research.

The provider had suitable systems and policies to ensure learning and improvement. We noted lesson learnt were in place and where concerns had been identified these concerns were shared with the staff team. The registered manager was responsive to feedback from all sources and had several ideas on how to improve the experience for people living at the home.