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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 40 (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.

For example, one person did not have adequate access to clothing or basic toiletries, despite leaders and the provider being aware of this concern since August 2025. The person had clearly expressed their primary wish was to improve their quality of life by accessing additional clothing, personal items, and a newspaper; despite this the person’s wishes had not been addressed, leaving them feeling neglected and unsupported.

Management visibility within the units was limited, and there was insufficient oversight of staff practice and interactions. This lack of oversight placed people at risk of receiving care that may be undignified or inconsistent, or not fully responsive to their needs.

We raised these concerns with the provider, who informed us of plans to introduce unit managers to improve management visibility and provide increased oversight of staff practice and the quality of care experienced by people.

However, we did observe some positive interactions between staff and people. Staff were seen to demonstrate kindness, patience, and supportive approaches. Feedback from people was generally positive, with several people describing staff as caring. One person commented, “The staff are very lovely and kind to me, I have no complaints.”

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.

For example, some people’s bedrooms were observed to be bare and clinical, with little evidence of personalisation. Leaders had not taken sufficient action to address this since the previous assessment resulted in environments that did not reflect people’s identities or personal preferences. We found people’s expressed choices and preferences were not always supported. One person told us they wished to have more frequent showers, but this was not consistently supported. Staff had not appropriately recorded the persons requests or any refusals, meaning their preferences were not effectively monitored or met.

Activities were not consistently person-centred or tailored to people’s needs and interests of individuals. This limited opportunities for meaningful engagement and had a negative impact on people’s wellbeing, as many told us they felt bored most of the time with little to do.

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.

For example, we observed many people sat in communal areas without meaningful engagement or stimulation. An activities coordinator was employed; however, this provision was not sufficient to meet people’s needs. Feedback from people and their relatives reflected a lack of activity. Comments included, “I just sit here (lounge), it’s just the same, nothing happens”

Some people reported experiencing limited choice and control over how their care and support needs were met. This included access to personal care, such as bathing or showering which was determined by a rota system rather than people’s preference. One person told us, “I like a bath instead of a shower and they help me to get one, there’s a bath list and it depends where you are on the list.”

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

For example, in one of the units, some call bells to enable people to call for staff assistance were not functioning, despite these issues having been identified during our previous assessment in August 2025. In addition, some people living at Arncliffe Court Care Home were unable to use the call bell system due to their physical or cognitive needs and therefore relied on staff carrying out regular welfare checks. We found inconsistencies in how frequently these checks were undertaken, which placed people at risk of their needs not being identified or responded to in a timely manner.

However, there was evidence in other units people were receiving the support they needed. One person told us, “They help me to get into the chair because I can’t walk and they get the doctor if I’m not well.” And “They [Staff] see to me when I ask them for help. They are good like that and they [Staff] know what I need and the food is quite nice here.”

We raised these concerns with the provider, who advised the call bell systems would be replaced by June 2026.

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, there was inconsistent support for staff, alongside challenges with staff deployment across different units. Staff reported frequently being moved between units, which negatively impacted morale, and continuity of care.

Staff spoke about the impact of frequent changes in management, which had affected team stability and confidence. One staff member told us, “It can be difficult as we have had changes in management and some managers did not value our input and it left us deflated. We are getting a new manager now so hopefully she will stay.”

Although policies and procedures were in place to support staff, including access to training, supervisions, and appraisals, these were not always sufficient to ensure staff felt consistently supported in their roles. While some staff told us they felt supported by the management team in relation to their work-life balance, this was not a consistent experience across the service. However, the provider had employed a peripatetic manager who was responsible for overseeing the transition of the management team. A peripatetic manager is someone employed to provide stability and support to an organisation during periods of change.