Arbury Court

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

We assessed one quality statement from this key question.

Our rating for this key question is good.

Patients were always at the centre of how their care was planned and delivered.

There were systems in place such as community meetings which provided patients with opportunities to raise any issues they encountered in a formal way. They told us they had no concerns raising issues.

Patients reported that they accessed advocacy services.

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 Person-centred Care during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

Patients could easily access the care and treatment they needed. Support for patients who spoke a different language was available. Patients told us they were supported and did not feel their needs were not being supported.

Patients did not raise any concerns about their experiences on the ward in respect of equality or discrimination.

There were systems in place such as community meetings which provide patients with opportunities to raise any issues they encountered in a formal way.

Patients reported that they accessed advocacy services and described that they knew how to raise any concerns that they may have and that they would feel confident in being able to do this.

Feedback from staff and leaders:

All staff had received an induction and the appropriate training. They could identify where they could access support if a patients had difficulty with translating speech or other communication problems.

Staff could access services when they needed to, including out of normal hours and in an emergency. Physical premises and equipment were accessible. They felt supported to overcome barriers to ensure equal access.

Managers gave examples of where adjustments had been made or were already in place to support patients who may have accessibility or mobility needs. Staff and managers described how patients would be supported with any spiritual or cultural needs that they may have, which included visits from religious leaders, having access to spiritual materials or being supported to attend places of worship. Staff also described how any dietary needs would be supported for any patients that had specific requirements for cultural or religious reasons.

Managers and staff were alert to discrimination and inequality that could disadvantage a patients experience and access to treatment and support.

Providers use people’s feedback and other evidence to actively seek to improve access for people more likely to experience barriers or delays in accessing their care.

All patients had opportunities such as advocacy, one to one therapeutic time with their named nurse, to raise any concerns about equities in their experiences. There was also direct communication with the hospital director through the patient forum.

Managers monitored complaints and concerns across the hospital.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.