You are here

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

We are carrying out a review of quality at Arbour Care. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 28 September 2018

Arbour Care is a domiciliary care agency. It provides live-in personal care to people living in their own homes in the community. It provides a service to older and younger people some of whom may have a with a learning or physical disability. At the time of our inspection the service provided a regulated activity to 27 people.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of the inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are 'registered persons'. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Medicines were not always managed in a safe way which put people at risk. However, people did say that they received their medicines when needed. Medicines audits not effective in identifying the shortfalls.

Daily notes relating to people’s care was not person centred. We have made a recommendation around this.

People told us that they felt safe. Relatives felt that their family members were safe with staff.

Recruitment process were robust and staff understood what they needed to do to protect people from the risk of abuse.

There were sufficient levels of staff to support people. Risk assessments were in place for people and staff were aware of how to reduce risks. Staff were following good infection control. Accidents and incidents were recorded. The registered manager was asked to ensure that these records were kept centralised so that analysis could be undertaken.

The principles of the Mental Capacity Act were being followed and staff ensured that they gained consent from people before delivering care.

Staff had the training and supervision necessary to carry out their role. People felt that staff were effective and understood what care they needed to deliver. Staff worked with health care professionals to ensure that people were supported with the health care needs. This included being supported with their food and hydration needs.

A full assessment of people’s needs took place before people started using the service. Care plans were detailed and people were fully involved in the planning. Care plans were regularly reviewed and updated. Staff understood the needs of people and were effective in communicating changes in people’s care. People were supported to access the community.

People and relatives felt that staff were caring and respectful. People felt that staff assisted with the independence and included them in any decision making. People and relatives developed positive relationships with staff.

People understood how to make a complaint. Complaints were investigated and actions taken to resolve complaints. Other audits and quality assurance were robust and used to make improvements to the care provided. People and staff thought the leadership of the service was good. Staff felt supported and valued. Staff understood the ethos of the service.

The service worked closely with other agencies outside of the organisation. The registered manager ensured that notifications were sent to the CQC where necessary.

This was the first inspection at the service. There is one breach of regulation. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

Inspection areas


Requires improvement

Updated 28 September 2018

The service was not consistently safe.

Medicines were not always managed in a safe way. People however did say that they had their medicines when needed.

Care plans were in place to manage risks to people. Where accidents and incidents occurred, staff responded appropriately to reduce further risks. Improvements were needed in relation to the recording of these.

Staff understood how to respond to suspected abuse. People told us that they felt safe.

Staff followed best practice with regards to infection control.

There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s needs. The provider carried out appropriate checks on new staff to ensure they were suitable before they started work.



Updated 28 September 2018

The service was effective.

People’s needs and choices were assessed in line with best practice. Staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act.

People were supported with their meals in line with their dietary needs and preferences. Staff worked with healthcare professionals to meet people’s needs.

Staff were trained to carry out their roles and worked well together to ensure they worked within best practice guidelines. Staff received an induction and had regular one to ones with their line managers to discuss their work.

Before people started to receive the care a full assessment of their needs took place.



Updated 28 September 2018

The service was caring.

Staff treated people with kindness and compassion. Friendships developed between people and staff and the focus from staff was on ensuring that people’s emotional as well as personal needs were being met.

People felt that staff always treated them with dignity and respect and we saw that this was the case.

People were able to express their opinions about the service and were involved in the decisions about their care. People were supported with their independence.

Care was centred on people's individual needs.



Updated 28 September 2018

The service was responsive.

People received personalised care. Care plans reflected people’s needs and interests. Care needs were reviewed regularly and any changes were actioned by staff.

People were supported to go out when they wanted.

People were supported at the end of their life.

There was a complaints policy in place that was accessible to people.


Requires improvement

Updated 28 September 2018

The service was not consistently well- led.

Medicine audits were not always taking place. Records were not always being made in detail around people’s care, and supervision records were not always kept.

There were other appropriate systems in place that monitored the safety and quality of the service. Where people's views were gained this was used to improve the quality of the service.

Staff understood the ethos of the service and bought into the values demonstrated by management. People and staff thought the leadership was supportive and they could go to them with any concerns.

The culture of the service was supportive and staff felt valued and included.

The staff at the service worked with organisations outside of the service to support people’s care.

Notifications were sent to the CQC where appropriate.