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 did not raise any concerns about their experiences on the ward in respect of equality or discrimination. One patient commented that the food available for vegan patients lacked choice and, although this had been fed back to the chef, nothing had changed following this feedback.

There were systems in place such as community meetings and the patient council which provided patients with opportunities to raise any issues they encountered in a formal way.

Patients reported that could access advocacy services and confirmed that they would do so if they needed. One patient noted they had a recent issue with contacting the advocacy services by telephone which was discussed with the advocacy service who checked the phone line.

We spoke with a patient who had complained to the service that felt that, although a resolution to the complaint had taken some time, they felt their complaint was dealt with fairly and they were satisfied with the outcome.

Staff received inductions and could access appropriate training. Staff described how they could access support if a patient had difficulty with translating speech or other communication problems.

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.

The provider had processes in place to enable patients to give feedback and raise any concerns about their experiences within the hospital, including around any inequalities that may be faced in relation to experiences and outcomes.

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.

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.