Arbury Court

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

We assessed one quality statement from this key question. the rating from the last inspection, was good.

Our rating for this key question is good.

We found there was good therapeutic activities taking place.

Patients were involved in the daily running of the ward with community meetings taking place.

There was provision for those patients who had communication difficulties or poor language skills as well support for those form different cultural backgrounds with different diets and religious leaders available.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Kindness, compassion and dignity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

We did not look at Treating people as individuals during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

Staff supported, informed and involved families or carers. Patients told us that family and friends were able to visit. They confirmed that carers were able to attend ward rounds and meetings when patients wanted them to attend, patients who had asked for no family involvement confirmed staff complied with their wishes.



We saw family visiting patients and they spoke positively about the support their loved ones had received.



However, there was no friends or family survey data for the acute and PICU service. The carers we spoke with were positive, but some did feel they were not always informed off incidents as quickly as they would have liked.

Staff involved patients in the daily operation of the ward as much as possible.

Both wards had an admission pack that they gave to patients. They also had staff information boards with information and pictures of staff.



Staff involved patients and gave them access to their care planning and risk assessments. Care records showed that patients were always offered copies of care plans, and risk assessments showed evidence of patient involvement.

Staff made sure patients understood their care and treatment and found ways to communicate with patients who had communication difficulties. For example, there was provision for patients who did not speak English as their first language to receive translated information, including relating to their rights under the Mental Health Act.



Staff involved patients in decisions about the service, when appropriate. Community meetings were held on the wards, we saw minutes from meetings on the notice board. These showed consideration of patients’ thoughts and outlined attempts to include patients on improving the service.



Staff made sure patients could access advocacy services. Patients told us they had access to advocacy services and that they found this helpful.

We saw staff ask patients if they wanted to engage with an activity, if the patient declined staff would follow up suggesting other activities that the patient might like.

The wards were busy with patients taking leave and other professionals entering the wards to engage with the patients in activities or therapeutic sessions.

Care plans were clear and recorded patient involvement with their care planning. They were up to date and recorded when patients were offered a copy.

Care plans were off good quality and reflected the patient voice and identified their needs and how staff should support them with these.

The hospital collated data so managers could see how often care plans were updated.

Friends and family tests showed positives responses in patients being involved in their care and treatment as well as being treated with respect and dignity.

There was a service user's voice forum where patients met with the hospital director to discuss how the hospital was performing.

We did not look at Responding to people’s immediate needs during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

We did not look at Workforce wellbeing and enablement during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.