Archived: Arthurs Court

Updated 12 March 2021

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

As part of CQC’s response to the coronavirus pandemic we are looking at the preparedness of care homes in relation to infection prevention and control. This was a targeted inspection looking at the infection control and prevention measures the provider has in place.

This inspection took place on 2 March 2021 and was announced.

Updated 12 March 2021

This inspection was carried out on 7 June 2018 and was unannounced. This was the first inspection of the home since it was registered to Aiveda Limited.

Arthurs Court is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The care home provides accommodation and nursing care to up to 40 people. The home specialises in the care of older people who require nursing care to meet their physical needs. At the time of the inspection there were 35 people living at the home.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission 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.

The provider had owned the home for just over a year and the registered manager had been in post since July 2017. In this time they had carried out regular audits and put action plans in place to improve the service and accommodation offered to people.

People were satisfied with the care they received but improvements were needed to make sure people had a good quality of life. Staff were very kind and patient when assisting people, but most interactions were task focussed rather than person centred.

There were limited opportunities for social stimulation. Activities were not planned and delivered in accordance with people’s interests and abilities. The result of this was that a number of people, who were unable to occupy themselves, spent their day in the lounge with the television on or in an activity group which did not interest them.

People felt safe at the home and with the staff who supported them. One person told us, “I feel safe. The staff are very good to me, not like some places you hear about.” The provider had systems and processes in place which helped to minimise risks to people.

People’s healthcare needs were monitored on a day to day basis by trained nurses. The staff ensured people had access to other healthcare professionals according to their individual needs. The staff worked in partnership with other professionals to make sure people received the treatment they required.

People’s nutritional needs were assessed and met. Where people required support to eat and drink this was provided in an unhurried and dignified manner. People were generally happy with the food provided. One person said, “Food is alright. We get a choice.”

Staff knew how to support people who lacked the capacity to make decisions. People were supported to have choice and control over their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. When people lacked capacity, decisions had been made on their behalf following current legislation.

People’s privacy and dignity was respected and people felt comfortable with the staff who supported them. Staff observed during the inspection were kind and friendly.

The provider and registered manager were committed to listening to people to make sure improvements made were in accordance with people’s wishes. People told us they would be comfortable to raise any complaints or concerns with a member of staff.

Further information is in the detailed findings below