Skip to content
CQC ExplainedEvery inspection report, in plain English

CQC report explained · a residential care home, run by Saffron Care Homes

Arlington House

1 Arlington Gardens, Ilford, IG1 3HH

Requires improvementpublished 2 December 2023, 2 years ago

Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the service was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.

The five questions inspectors ask
Safe?
Requires improvement
Inspectors found unsafe premises and medicines problems. There were also concerns about fire alarm servicing, locked areas, hazardous substances and inaccurate fridge and freezer temperature records.
Effective?
Good
People's needs were assessed before they moved in. Staff had training and supervision, people received support with food and healthcare, and mental capacity and best-interest arrangements were in place.
Caring?
Good
Staff treated people with dignity and respect. Inspectors observed friendly interactions, and staff supported privacy, communication, choice and independence.
Responsive?
Requires improvement
The home supported communication, family relationships, community activities and complaints. However, care plans did not cover independent living skills and did not record the reason for padlocks on two wardrobes.
Well-led?
Requires improvement
The home had an open and positive culture, but its audits and monitoring systems had missed problems with medicines, fire safety, premises and care plan reviews.
The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, December 2023

Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and effective care, but unsafe medicines, premises and weak records needed fixing.

Inspectors visited unannounced on 12 and 16 October 2023. One inspector observed care, spoke with a relative and six staff, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records. They could not speak directly with people because of their communication needs.

The home was caring and effective, with enough staff, suitable training, support with food and healthcare, and respectful interactions. People could see relatives, take part in activities and make choices where possible.

However, some medicines were not managed safely. Parts of the building were unsafe, care plans did not include independent living goals, and checks by managers had missed important problems. The overall rating is Requires Improvement, with Safe, Responsive and Well-led also rated Requires Improvement. Effective and Caring remain Good.

What inspectors praised

  • Enough staff

    Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Staff were able to respond promptly and relatives also said staffing was sufficient.

    “There are always enough staff, everyone has 1 to 1 [staff support].” from the report

  • Effective support

    People's needs were assessed before they moved in. Staff had relevant training, people were supported with healthy food and healthcare, and relatives were involved.

    “[Person] is fine here. They meet [person's] needs. The staff are good, they are understanding.” from the report

  • Kind and respectful care

    Staff used respectful, friendly approaches and promoted privacy and dignity. People appeared relaxed with staff.

    “I always watch [person's] reaction when they are with staff, and most of the time they are smiling.” from the report

  • Activities and relationships

    People could see relatives and take part in activities at home and in the community, including cinema visits and trips out.

    “[Person] does go out. They have the van [minibus], they go to the cinema. They go for a drive, that relaxes [person].” from the report

  • Safeguarding arrangements

    Staff had safeguarding training and understood that suspected abuse must be reported. Money held for people was managed with records and receipts.

    “It needs to be reported to the manager, we can't hide that, it's important.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about

  • Unsafe premises

    serious

    A broken kitchen gate lock allowed a person to enter when staff were not present. A boiler room was unlocked despite exposed hot pipes, and there were flooring problems and other missed safety checks.

    “The provider had not taken sufficient steps to ensure the safety of the premises.” from the report

  • Medicines not fully controlled

    serious

    The home had not recorded medicine stock levels, some as-required medicines lacked protocols, and old medicines had not been disposed of. This meant medicines could not always be checked or given safely.

    “Medicines were not always managed in a way that was safe.” from the report

  • Care plans missed independence goals

    serious

    Care plans did not describe the support people needed to develop independent living skills. They also did not explain the use of padlocks on two wardrobes.

    “Care plans were not comprehensive as they did not cover supporting people to develop independent living skills.” from the report

  • Weak quality checks

    serious

    Audits and reviews had not identified problems with medicines, fire alarm servicing, premises safety or overdue care plan reviews. This reduced confidence that the home was finding and fixing risks.

    “The provider had failed to implement and operate effective quality assurance and monitoring systems.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What has been done to make the kitchen gate, boiler room, flooring and hazardous-substance storage safe?
  2. 02How are medicine stock balances, as-required medicine protocols and disposal of old medicines checked now?
  3. 03What independent living skills and goals are recorded in each person's care plan?
  4. 04How are fire alarm servicing and other safety checks tracked so they are not missed?
  5. 05How do managers now check that audits identify and resolve problems?

This was an unannounced inspection of the whole care home, including both the premises and care, and it assessed all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 December 2023 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Arlington House

3 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.

  1. December 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from Good
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read what inspectors found at Arlington House →

  2. October 2017Goodstayed Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    We are reading this report · the original is on cqc.org.uk

  3. May 2016Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. July 2014

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. July 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. August 2012

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 August 2012.

Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission. A service can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections, not every contact the CQC has had with the service.

Another option

Or stay at home with a private carer

Many people who look at care homes end up staying at home with a carer who comes in for a few hours a day, or lives in. PrimeCarers introduces you to self-employed carers you choose yourself: interviewed, ID and DBS checked, from about £20 an hour or £1,120 a week live-in.

About live-in careHow PrimeCarers works
Nearby

Other care homes near Ilford

All in Redbridge

Delrose House

Ilford, IG1 · 0.2 km
Good
Residential
Rated 2 years agoReport explained

Seymour Gardens

London, IG1 · 0.4 km
Good
Residential
Rated 8 years agocare home