Arncliffe Court Care Home

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

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence the provider met people’s needs.At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 43 (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 make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. People did not always have care plans tailored to their individual needs. Staff lacked sufficient knowledge of people’s preferences, needs, and personal circumstances, which impacted their ability to provide responsive and person-centred care. Due to staffing levels and limited resources, we could not be assured people’s needs and preferences were consistently met. A relative told us, “I was told they didn’t provide a ‘sippy cup’ to help [Name] with drinking, so we bought one ourselves. Then [Name] ended up drinking out of someone else’s cup.” We observed a person assessed as being at high risk of falls, sitting without a sensor mat near their chair, which increased their risk of injury. When we raised this with staff, they acknowledged it had been forgotten and took immediate action to rectify the situation.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity. Although the provider sought support and information from other healthcare professionals, this was not always followed up leaving people at risk of unmet needs. Staff lacked training in several areas relevant to people’s care and support needs, to aid their understanding of the needs of people; including catheter care, falls prevention, epilepsy and stoma care awareness.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats tailored to individual needs. The Accessible Information Standard (AIS), a legal requirement for all organisations providing NHS or publicly funded adult social care, states providers must ensure people with a disability, impairment, or sensory loss can access information in a format they understand. At Arncliffe Court Care Home, there were no clear adjustments made to care plans to support individuals in managing and understanding their care and support. Additionally, for one person’s care plan referenced a daily visual structure or timetable was required to reduce their distress. We found this was not available for staff to use. Another person’s accessible information care plan referred to their need to use communication tools to aid communication, such as predictable visual structure to reduce distress. It stated staff should be trained in non-verbal communication; however, we found the communication aids were not in place and staff had not received the relevant training. This meant the person was not afforded appropriate tools to support with their communication. There was no evidence to show people had seen their care plans or been involved in their development. We were not assured people were fully involved in their care decisions.

The provider did not always respond to complaints about people's care, treatment, and support in a timely or effective manner. Staff did not consistently involve people in decisions about their care or inform them of any changes made as a result of concerns raised. Some people and their relatives felt comfortable speaking with staff or the management team if they had a complaint, however one relative told us they did not feel listened to by the registered manager when they expressed concerns about their loved one’s risk of falls.

The provider did not always make sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. They had not ensured staff fully understood people’s needs and did not provide them with training on how to support people’s health conditions. However, staff knew how to access specialist health and social care professionals needed such as district nurses and the Speech and Language Therapy Team (SALT). The multidisciplinary team consisting of GP and community matrons met weekly to support staff and to ensure people received care and treatment in a timely manner.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to or consider information about individuals most at risk of experiencing inequality in their care. As a result, people’s care was not always tailored to their needs. The management team and staff did not consistently know people’s histories, experiences, or desired outcomes, due to lack of appropriate care planning. The provider’s assessment process did not consistently capture individuals’ life experiences, including disabilities and emotional needs. For example, some care plans referred to other people which meant it was impossible to tell if the information related to the person named on the care plan or other people. This led to key aspects of people's identities being overlooked or poorly recorded, limiting the ability to plan care or interactions in a way which ensured positive, person-centred outcomes. People were at risk of inequality in experience or outcomes as a result.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, including end-of-life care, which limited their ability to make informed decisions about their future. People were not consistently involved in reviewing their care plans, and discussions about future goals, aspirations, or care preferences. Care plans lacked personalised information about what people could do for themselves, the progress they wished to make, or how they could develop independence, skills, or pursue interests. This inconsistency in future planning put people at risk of having their future care needs overlooked and at risk of not receiving care in line with their wishes and preferences.