You are here

The Arc Requires improvement

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 2 April 2020

About the service

The Assessment and Rehabilitation Centre (The ARC), is an integrated provider with the national health service and social services working together to provide care and support for 31 people at the time of inspection. The staff team consists of rehabilitation support workers, occupational therapists, physiotherapists and nurses. Accommodation is located on two floors with a lift available to facilitate access to the second floor. The service can support up to 33 people.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Care was not planned in a personalised way. Care files did not always contain care plans to reflect how people’s needs were to be met. Gaps in documentation meant there was not a clear record of the food and fluids people with nutritional concerns had received. Falls care plans were not always updated to reflect the mobility support people required.

We have made recommendations about risk taking management, lessons learned and care plan record keeping which can be found in the ‘safe’ and ‘responsive’ sections of this report.

Safeguarding procedures were in place to protect people from the risk of abuse and avoidable harm by staff who understood how to recognise and respond to concerns. Staff were recruited safely and there were enough staff deployed to meet people's needs. Medicines were managed safely. People were protected from the risk of infection as prevention and control measures were in place.

Staff received the training and support they needed to carry out their roles. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People were treated with dignity and respect and said staff were kind and caring. People's right to privacy was upheld. The registered manager provided people with information about local advocacy services, to ensure they could access support to express their views if they needed to.

People’s communication needs had been assessed and where support was required these had been met. People knew how to complain, and felt concerns raised would be listened to and acted upon.

People were consulted and asked their views on the service provided. The registered provider reviewed exit surveys completed by people and relatives to assess their satisfaction with the service.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published 27 September 2017)

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

We have found evidence that the provider needs to make improvements. Please see the responsive and well-led sections of this full report.

You can see what action we have asked the provider to take at the end of this full report.

The provider responded immediately during and after the inspection to effectively mitigate the risks by reviewing care planning arrangements and documentation.


We have identified a breach of regulation in relation to good governance at this inspection. The registered manager failed to maintain good records of care planning and monitoring and evaluation.

Please see the action we have told the provider to take at the end of this report.

Follow up:

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

Inspection areas


Requires improvement

Updated 2 April 2020

The service was not always safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.



Updated 2 April 2020

The service was effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.



Updated 2 April 2020

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 2 April 2020

The service was not always responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below


Requires improvement

Updated 2 April 2020

The service was not always well-led.

Details are in our well-Led findings below.