- Care home
Hallmark Arlington Manor Luxury Care Home
Assessment report published 30 September 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
The service is a care home which provides nursing care. There were 81 people using the service at the time of the assessment.
The service is registered to support older and younger adults, this included caring for people with dementia, a physical disability or sensory impairment. A community on the second floor provides specialist care for people living with dementia.
We carried out this assessment between 4 August and 1 September 2026. The assessment was unannounced and we visited the care home on 2 occasions. This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard. Instead, our findings focus on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.
The assessment was undertaken by 3 inspectors and 2 Experts by Experience. An Expert by Experience is a person who had personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. We also sought feedback from health and social care professionals who worked with the service and Healthwatch. Healthwatch is an independent consumer champion that gathers and represents the views of the public about health and social care services in England.
People were supported by enough staff to meet their needs. Staff were recruited safely and received the training and supervision they required to carry out their roles. Whilst we found some specific training modules had not been allocated to some staff; this was reviewed and actioned promptly by the registered manager. Risks were assessed, where people required additional safety support and knowledge, we found this was provided.
The service used a range of equipment to meet people’s needs, which included air alternating mattresses to support skin integrity, specialist beds with height adjustment and floor mats to reduce risk of physical injury. One person’s relative told us, “[Person] has a [medical device] and [hospital] said they were surprised at how well [staff] maintained it.” Medicines were managed safely across the service, with good systems in place and effective involvement from the prescriber and other health professionals.
All people, and their relatives, told us staff provided safe care. There was a proactive culture of safety and learning from incidents, and information was shared with people, relatives and staff as required. Staff understood their responsibilities to protect people from abuse and avoidable harm and were confident to raise concerns if needed. Routine maintenance, servicing and planned refurbishment work was completed as scheduled and required. We found the service was clean and fresh throughout on both of our visits.
People’s needs were thoroughly assessed through preadmission assessments and personalised care plans that were regularly reviewed and updated to reflect changing needs. Staff found care plans reliable and reflective of individual needs. However, we did receive some mixed feedback from people on their awareness of their care plans, which we shared with the registered manager for their review. The registered manager told us the service was in the process of implementing electronic systems in bedrooms which will allow people to access their care plans more easily and with staff support if required.
Staff used nationally recognised tools to support recognition of changing health, this meant staff were able to respond quickly to changes, and we saw healthcare reviews were arranged.
People’s food and fluid intake was monitored, where there was an identified risk. We observed people were appropriately supported with choice, and this included using ‘show plates’ to visually display the food on offer. Pictorial and written menus were also available. People with sensory loss received appropriate support to understand how their food was presented and those who received assistance from staff were supported in a safe and unhurried manner.
People had choice and autonomy over how they lived their lives and spent their time. Staff understood the need to gain people’s consent, and the importance of involving people to make decisions. Where people lacked capacity, a best interest decision was made and recorded.
People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found that staff and management worked within the MCA. DoLS authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions, they had choice, control and freedom over their lives.
People and their relatives spoke positively about the caring and compassionate nature of staff. People were able to participate in a range of activities, groups and wellbeing experiences at the care home. The service had a team specifically in place to support people with their interests and organise activities and events.
Complaints and concerns were appropriately reviewed and action was taken. People and their relatives spoke highly of the responsiveness of the registered manager and were positive their views would be listened to and acted upon.
Equity in experience and outcomes was championed throughout the service. Staff went above and beyond to ensure people's goals were recognised and acted upon. They demonstrated a strong commitment to person-centred care, using local community links to remove barriers and support meaningful opportunities and outcomes.
Leaders promoted a positive, compassionate and inclusive culture. Staff told us they felt valued and worked in an environment free from harassment and bullying. Governance systems were effective and the registered manager had clear oversight of the service. The provider’s senior management team undertook visits and specific checks, which further strengthened their oversight and gave people and their relatives opportunities to directly feedback to the organisation.
The service embraced innovative practice through accredited programmes, improving people's wellbeing and outcomes. This included a personalised music initiative and ongoing work towards End-of-Life Centre of Excellence accreditation, which focused on advance care planning and specialist staff training.
People's experience of this service
People were positive about their experience of the service. People told us staff were kind, compassionate and caring. For example, 1 person told us, “I think the staff are nice, they look at you, smile and say hello. The staff come and ask if I am OK and I appreciate that. It feels like home.” Another person said, “I have been here for [time period] and I have never looked back, [feeling] safe is not the word, the staff are wonderful, if you ask anything they do their best to help.”
People told us about the activities available at the service and how these had a positive impact on their lives. This included support to continue with lifelong interests, and trying new experiences. For example, 1 person told us, “I think there is plenty to do, quizzes, exercise classes and all sorts of different things. The exercise class is a lovely little class.” We found experiences were available for those who were unable to join communal activities, and these were personalised and further demonstrated equity in access.
We used observation to inform our assessment for people who could not verbally share their feedback. We saw staff were caring, attentive and promoted people’s dignity. Staff spent time with people, providing social support and we found they were person centred in their approach. This included communicating with people in the most effective way, which met their needs. Staff were efficient but relaxed and unhurried in their approach, which clearly put people at ease. Staff consistently referred to people by their chosen name or professional title, and we saw people responded positively to this.
People and their relatives provided mixed feedback regarding meal provisions. Generally, we were told food provision was good, and options were available. However, some feedback indicated people would appreciate more variety and choice, especially in the evenings. We shared this feedback with the registered manager and provider for their knowledge and review.
People and their relatives were positive about the environment, and the service overall. One person’s relative told us, “We looked at a number of care homes before deciding on Arlington. It’s clean, friendly and well organised. The facilities are lovely. The staff are very good.”
People and their relatives spoke highly of the registered manager and told us they felt confident to approach them with any comments or concerns. One person told us, “The manager is around a lot, and [registered manager] is approachable.” One person’s relative said, “[Registered manager] is very good, and I find [them] very responsive. [Registered manager] is definitely on the ball and listens to what needs to be done and gets it sorted out quickly.”