Arbory Residential 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

We assessed 1 quality statement from this key question. We identified 1 continued breach of the legal requirements. During our assessment of this key question, we found systems and processes in place did not always ensure people received appropriate person-centred care.

This service scored 61 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People did not always receive person centred care. They told us, not many people used the garden. Relatives told us people were not always engaged and were often sat in chairs doing nothing. They talked about a lack of stimulation, people never going out and were concerned about the lack of an activities coordinator.

The deputy manager told us they ensured people received person centred care by carrying out observations and by asking staff directly how they deliver person centred care. Previous managers had completed initial assessment documentation, we could see relatives had been involved in this process. The deputy manager, some senior staff and the regional manager completed care planning for people. We asked what was in place to ensure people were included in their care planning. The deputy manager told us they have resident of the day once a month and they called people’s next of kin and go through the care plan with them to make sure they are happy with it or ask if they wanted to change it. People were not involved in reviewing their own care plans. One service user told us they liked gardening; however, a staff member told us it had not been always possible for people to be involved in planting and tending the garden. A member of the management team told us people had consent forms for the care and treatment which included photographs. We could see these were in place.

People did not always receive person-centred care that was based on their assessed needs and preferences. We observed care plans were not always personalised. For example, some records contained other people’s names. One person was not supported in line with their SaLT (Speech and Language Therapist) guidelines. For example, they were regularly given puree food when their food should have been fork mashable. This meant they regularly received food at a texture softer than they required and therefore were not being supported to experience the full range of textures they could safely have. This lack of clarity about food texture was also evident in our discussion with staff. Staff were not always clear about what food consistency people were prescribed. Despite the implementation of a reviewing system called ‘Resident of the Day’, we continued to find care plans were not always accurate or contained conflicting information. They were not always revised as people’s needs changed. This created a risk inexperienced, or agency staff would not have sufficient information to know how to meet people’s needs. A member of the management team told us they would address this with staff. This had been a concern at our last inspection but had not been effectively addressed. One person’s care plan described they did not like to be disturbed at night, but their care included the need for checks to be made regularly at night. There was no rationale for these checks. The deputy manager told us the person should not be checked throughout the night. This meant people did not always receive person centred care based on their assessment of their needs and preferences. We observed people sitting at the dining table waiting for their lunch. One person asked what was for lunch, but staff did not know. Ensuring there was a system in place to enable people to have choice at mealtimes had been a concern when we last inspected. This had not been addressed.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in experiences and outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.