Archived: Arthur's Court

We last inspected the service in July 2013 and the service was meeting the regulations of the Health and Social Care Act (2008) we inspected.

The service is required to have a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

There were adequate staffing levels to meet people’s needs. There had been staff shortages during 2016 and the service had needed to use agency staff to cover gaps. At the time of the inspection the service had almost a complete full team of staff and were not so reliant on agency staff. People felt there were adequate numbers of staff on duty and that staff responded to bells promptly.

People were supported by staff who had the required recruitment checks in place. Staff received an induction and were knowledgeable about the signs of abuse and how to report concerns. Staff had received training and developed skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs. Staff relationships with people were caring and supportive. They delivered care that was kind and compassionate.

Measures to manage risk were as least restrictive as possible to protect people’s freedom. Medicines were safely managed and procedures were in place to ensure people received their medicines as prescribed. Topical cream charts to guide staff were not always clear. However following the inspection we received assurances from the registered manager that improvements had been made.

Care plans were personalised and recognised people’s health, social and psychological needs. We raised concerns with the registered manager that care plans did not always cover all aspects of people’s needs. Following the inspection the registered manager and deputy manager reviewed everyone’s care file. They put in place care plans where needed to ensure all people’s health needs were covered.

People’s views and suggestions were taken into account to improve the service. Health and social care professionals were regularly involved in people’s care to ensure they received the care and treatment which was right for them.

Staff demonstrated an understanding of their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. Where people lacked capacity, mental capacity assessments had been completed. However it was not always clear how best interest decisions had been made in line with the MCA. People’s families had been asked to consent but it was not always clear how this decision had been made.

People were supported to eat and drink enough and maintain a balanced diet. People were positive about the food at the service.

The provider had a range of quality monitoring systems in place which were used to continually review and improve the service. Where there were concerns or complaints, these were investigated and action taken. The premises and equipment were managed to keep people safe.

Care plans were comprehensive identifying the health and social care needs of people. People told us the care they received was responsive and flexible. One person told us "I get the care when I need it". There were arrangements so that people had access to specialists and other health professionals.

There were good arrangements for the management and administration of medicines. Staff had the necessary information about medicines people received so their health needs were protected.

There were robust arrangements for the recruitment and selection of staff. Staff received the necessary training so they could undertake their roles and responsibilities in a professional manner.

There were good arrangements for monitoring and auditing the quality of the service. People had an opportunity to comment on the service they received. However this could be improved by the use of questionnaires asking for people's views and any suggestions for improvements.

One visitor said they had always been welcomed in the home and staff members were always polite and caring. They told us the 'the staff are fantastic with the residents'.

People we spoke with told us that they were happy at Arthur's Court. One person told us, they had lived in the home for quite a while and were comfortable with the way the home was run.

One person commented on the staff in the home, 'the staff are all very good, you can trust them'.

Staff we spoke with had a very clear understanding of the care needs of people who lived in the home. We saw actions that promoted the dignity of people using the service were included in the person centred plans.

People spoken with told us they felt happy and safe at Arthur's Court.

Staff spoken with said that they were aware of the home's policies on recognising and reporting abuse and would not hesitate to report any concerns to the manager or duty nurse.

Regular audits of the premises, care practices and documentation were carried out to maintain the health safety and wellbeing of people at the home.

The manager in post at the service is not yet registered with the Commission.