You are here


Inspection carried out on 22 January 2021

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Archers Court accommodates up to 42 people with nursing and residential care needs in a purpose-built building. On the day of our inspection, 38 people were using the service.

We found the following examples of good practice:

• Appropriate measures were in place to reduce the risk of infection. The environment was very clean, with enhanced cleaning taking place of frequently touched surfaces.

• Social distancing rules were being complied with. Some minor changes had been made to the layout of furniture to encourage and support social distancing.

• The provider was following national guidance for anyone moving into the home and admissions were carried out safely.

• People were supported to keep in touch with their family members via video or telephone calls. The provider had developed ways to safely support visits in line with the latest guidance.

• Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) was appropriately stored, used and disposed of. Staff had undertaken additional training in infection prevention and control and regular audits were carried out.

• Staffing levels had been maintained during the recent outbreak with the support of agency staff.

Inspection carried out on 13 November 2019

During a routine inspection

About the service

Archers Court provides accommodation for up to 40 people with residential and nursing care needs in a purpose-built building. 36 people were using the service at the time of the inspection.

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

People and family members told us the service was safe. Risks were well managed and the provider learned from previous accidents and incidents to reduce future risks. Staff were aware of the provider’s whistleblowing policy and had been trained in how to protect people from abuse. Arrangements were in place for the safe administration of medicines.

There were enough staff on duty to meet the needs of people. The provider had an effective recruitment and selection procedure, and carried out relevant vetting checks when they employed staff. Staff were suitably trained and received regular supervisions and appraisals.

People’s needs were assessed before they started using the service. People were effectively supported with their dietary and healthcare needs.

There was a strong, visible person-centred culture. Staff treated people with dignity and respect. They helped to maintain people’s independence by encouraging them to care for themselves where possible.

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 given information in a way they could understand. Innovative steps had been taken to meet people’s communication needs. There was a holistic approach to end of life care.

The provider had a complaints procedure. People and family members did not have any complaints but were aware of how to make a complaint.

People were protected from social isolation and there were good links with the local community. An effective quality assurance process was in place. People, family members and staff were regularly consulted about the quality of 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 13 May 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

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 carried out on 7 March 2017

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on 7 and 10 March 2017 and was unannounced. This meant staff and the registered provider did not know that we would be visiting.

This was the first inspection of the home since the current provider was registered to run the service April 2016. The provider Indigo Care Services is part of the Orchard group of homes.

Archers Court provides nursing and residential care for up to 40 older people, some of whom are living with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 25 people using the service, six of whom received nursing care.

The home had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission 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.

People told us they received good care from kind and considerate care workers. They also told us they felt safe living at the home.

There were enough care workers on duty to meet people’s needs in a timely manner.

Care workers showed a good understanding of safeguarding and the provider’s whistle blowing procedure. They told us they did not have concerns about people’s safety. The safeguarding log confirmed appropriate referrals had been made to the local authority safeguarding team. Safeguarding concerns had been fully investigated.

The provider had not always ensured two references were received before care workers started their employment. We have made a recommendation about this. Other recruitment checks were carried out in line with the provider’s recruitment process. This included checks on the registration status of qualified nursing staff.

Medicines were managed correctly. We found accurate records were kept which accounted for the medicines people had received. Only trained staff, whose competency had been checked, administered people’s medicines.

Accidents and incidents were recorded and investigated.

Regular health and safety checks were carried out. These were up to date when we visited the home. The provider had developed procedures so that people would receive appropriate care support in an emergency.

Care workers told us they felt supported working at the home and received appropriate training. Records confirmed essential training, supervision and appraisals were up to date.

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.

Most people told us the meals provided at the home were good. Where people had special dietary requirements meals were adapted to meet these needs. We saw people were supported as required to ensure they had enough to eat and drink.

Records showed people received input from a range of health care professionals when needed.

People’s needs had been assessed and personalised care plans developed. Care plans had been evaluated regularly and updated when people’s needs had changed. Care records contained details of important information about each person and details of their preferences.

The availability of activities was limited when we inspected. This was because the provider was waiting for a new activity coordinator commencing their employment. In the meantime care workers provided some activities.

There were opportunities for people to share their views and suggestions either by attending residents' meetings or completing questionnaires. .

People and relatives did not have any concerns about the care provided and knew how to complain. One complaint made in the past 12 months had been investigated and resolved in line with the provider’s complaints policy. People had been provided with information about the provider’s complaint policy.

People, relatives and care workers described the