Arthur Court

People, relatives and healthcare professionals gave positive feedback. Inspectors saw kind and compassionate interactions, and people said staff supported them well.

“During our inspection we observed kind interactions between people and staff.” from the report

Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs, including one-to-one support for activities and visits. Recruitment checks and induction processes promoted safety.

“The service had enough staff to meet people's needs, including for one-to-one support for people to take part in activities and visits how and when they wanted.” from the report

Medicines were stored, administered and checked safely. After a medication error was identified, an electronic scanning system was introduced and no further errors were recorded.

“Medicines were stored and administered safely in line with the providers processes.” from the report

People were encouraged to make choices, learn skills and take part in work, education, leisure and community activities.

“Staff supported and encouraged people to be as independent as possible.” from the report

Care plans and risk assessments did not always explain clearly how staff should reduce risks or support people during distress. This included choking, constipation and mental health needs.

“care plans and risk assessments were not robustly detailed to inform staff how to reduce risks to people, and support and reduce any distress.” from the report

Some incidents were not properly investigated, and lessons were not recorded or used to update care plans and risk assessments. There was no formal system for identifying trends.

“The service had not managed incidents affecting people's safety well.” from the report

There was no documented evidence that all staff had taken part in a fire drill, and no night-time fire drills had taken place. Some radiators were unguarded without risk assessments.

“There had been no fire drills completed at night, this presented a safety and fire risk.” from the report

Management checks did not reliably identify gaps in care plans, risk assessments, bowel monitoring or respectful wording. The provider had plans to improve this through new electronic systems.

“Staff completed a series of checks and audits, however there was no management oversight of these checks to ensure that any areas for improvement were being identified.” from the report