Arncliffe Court Care Home

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

Caring – this means we looked for evidence the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 45 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity. Staff did not always treat colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect. The provider did not always ensure staff treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity. People’s dignity was at risk of being compromised because of the provider’s lack of care attention to people’s living conditions. communal facilities were found to be unclean and unsuitable for use. Relatives expressed concerns about staff attentiveness, particularly relating to personal care. A relative said, “They should pay more attention to detail like hygiene and worn bedding. They change them in the room, and I have had to clean up after them because there are stains, they missed. I also check [Name]’s hands to make sure they’re clean.” Another person told us, “I don’t like the toilets here, they can be covered in poo, and it makes me feel sick, the staff don’t clean them after they have been used. There isn’t enough toilets. Too many residents and not enough toilets. One resident moved because of the toilets situation as it put them off meals.”

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics. However, when discussing people, most staff focused on people’s ‘challenging behaviour,’ often overlooking their unique skills and abilities. While care plans included information about people’s cultural and religious needs, communication needs were not consistently addressed to enable meaningful engagement in their care, treatment, and support, limiting their overall experience and outcomes. Additionally, some care plans contained references to other people’s names and different care facilities, which undermined confidence in the accuracy and personalisation of the records.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. We saw decisions were being made about people without the best practice guidelines being observed to ensure they remained at the centre of all decisions. While we observed some instances where people were asked about their preferences for food and drink, meaningful access to activities which supported independence, health, and wellbeing was limited. Although 2 activity coordinators were employed, this was viewed by people and their relatives as insufficient to meet the needs of everyone. A person shared, “[Name] only sees someone when they come to give him his food as he is cared for in bed. They need more interactions between staff and residents and residents with residents.” A person’s relative told us, “[Name] is not able to watch her television now because the remote control has gone missing. I think the communication is poor and they [Staff] are not pro-active. The care staff don’t have the resources to provide one-to-one care. I am worried sick about [Name].” However, people had regular access to friends and relatives, and we observed several visits during our inspection, which contributed positively to residents’ social wellbeing.

The provider did not listen to or understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. When people experienced periods of emotional distress, staff did not demonstrate a caring or empathic approach. We observed an incident where staff provide inappropriate physical support while attending to a person experiencing emotional distress. We saw instances where staff did not seek to understand the person’s distress and did not employ effective strategies to support the person. The provider did not provide guidance to staff on how to de-escalate situations in a respectful or valuing way. Staff had not received training to support or manage incidents of this nature. We observed a person who expressed pain was not given painkillers in a timely manner. On the second day of our visit, temperatures were very high, yet the registered manager had not arranged adequate provisions for people sitting outside in the sun. Most of the sun umbrellas were faulty, leaving individuals exposed to direct sunlight without any shade. We discussed these concerns with the registered manager who assured us they would take action to support staff to make improvements.

The provider did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care. For example, some staff had not had a supervision for more than 6 months. Staff told us they felt the registered manager was friendly and approachable. A staff member told us; the company was a, “Good place to work for.” However, some staff felt there were not enough staff to provide the support they wanted to and they described the impact this had on staff wellbeing due to staff worrying about people’s care needs not being met.