We carried out a review of the data available to us about Arthurs Court on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Arthurs Court, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
There was a clear process in place for welcoming visitors to the home. This included health screening questions, use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and temperature checks. Nonprofessional visitors to the home were invited to have a test for Covid-19 which gives a result within 30 minutes.
The home was clean, free from clutter and tidy. Staff were observed wearing their PPE correctly, the registered manager completed a stock take of supplies weekly and told us they had enough to use in line with government guidelines. The home participated in the whole home testing programme for both people and staff.
There were PPE stations throughout the home including places for disposal. Social distancing was encouraged. There was a dedicated visitor’s ‘pod’ which was comfortable and had floor to ceiling screens for people to be able to meet with their loved ones.
Staff had received training in preventing infections and wearing PPE correctly. Hand washing spot checks ensured that staff were complying with the recommended practices for hygiene. Cleaning solutions and laundry practices met with current government guidance.
A programme of renovations had started at the home and the registered manager told us the whole home would be subject to those improvements which had been delayed by the restrictions over the past year. The registered manager told us they were supported by their staff team and, in particular, the deputy manager. The provider kept regular contact with the registered manager and supported the home.
The registered manager and staff had been working hard to keep people’s spirits up during the pandemic. For example, the walls of the home were decorated with photographs of all the events and activities they had enjoyed. The registered manager told us there was a focus on mental health wellbeing for all and had adapted the staff supervision to ask more about wellbeing.
A day of reflection and remembrance was scheduled on 16 March 2021 to mark the one-year anniversary of the day the home first closed its doors to visitors. This was important to people to mark this day and the registered manager told us everybody needed this day to reflect on what has been a very difficult year.
Arthurs Court is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.
The care home provides accommodation and nursing care to up to 40 people. The home specialises in the care of older people who require nursing care to meet their physical needs. At the time of the inspection there were 35 people living at the home.
There was a registered manager in post. 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.
The provider had owned the home for just over a year and the registered manager had been in post since July 2017. In this time they had carried out regular audits and put action plans in place to improve the service and accommodation offered to people.
People were satisfied with the care they received but improvements were needed to make sure people had a good quality of life. Staff were very kind and patient when assisting people, but most interactions were task focussed rather than person centred.
There were limited opportunities for social stimulation. Activities were not planned and delivered in accordance with people’s interests and abilities. The result of this was that a number of people, who were unable to occupy themselves, spent their day in the lounge with the television on or in an activity group which did not interest them.
People felt safe at the home and with the staff who supported them. One person told us, “I feel safe. The staff are very good to me, not like some places you hear about.” The provider had systems and processes in place which helped to minimise risks to people.
People’s healthcare needs were monitored on a day to day basis by trained nurses. The staff ensured people had access to other healthcare professionals according to their individual needs. The staff worked in partnership with other professionals to make sure people received the treatment they required.
People’s nutritional needs were assessed and met. Where people required support to eat and drink this was provided in an unhurried and dignified manner. People were generally happy with the food provided. One person said, “Food is alright. We get a choice.”
Staff knew how to support people who lacked the capacity to make decisions. People were supported to have choice and control over their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. When people lacked capacity, decisions had been made on their behalf following current legislation.
People’s privacy and dignity was respected and people felt comfortable with the staff who supported them. Staff observed during the inspection were kind and friendly.
The provider and registered manager were committed to listening to people to make sure improvements made were in accordance with people’s wishes. People told us they would be comfortable to raise any complaints or concerns with a member of staff.
Further information is in the detailed findings below