CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Arbor House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that people were protected from avoidable harm. Risks were reviewed, medicines were administered safely, staffing was sufficient and infection prevention measures were in place.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its rating was not stated in this report.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its rating was not stated in this report.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its rating was not stated in this report.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found positive leadership and effective systems for monitoring quality. People, relatives and staff said the home was well run and that the manager was approachable.
What inspectors found, September 2022
Arbor House rated Good; inspectors found safe care and strong management, with activities staffing still being recruited.
Inspectors visited the home without warning on 10 and 11 August 2022. They spoke with people living there, relatives, staff and health professionals. They also checked care records, medicines, recruitment files and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe and Well-led were both rated Good. Inspectors found that risks were assessed, medicines were managed safely, staffing levels were sufficient and infection control arrangements were in place.
People, relatives and staff described the home as well run and approachable. The home had systems to monitor quality, investigate concerns and make changes when things went wrong.
This inspection was prompted partly by concerns about managing safety risks. Inspectors found no evidence that people were at risk of harm from that concern. The overall rating remained Good, the same as at the previous inspection published in February 2019.
Risks were managed
Care plans covered risks such as falls, mobility, skin care and eating and drinking. Staff understood the measures needed to keep people safe.
“Risks to people's lives had been assessed and kept under review.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Medicines were given by trained staff, with audits and clear guidance for medicines taken when needed.
“Medicines were administered by trained staff, in a safe manner.” from the report
Strong oversight
The home used audits and checks to monitor care. Action was taken when problems were found, and lessons were used to reduce further risk.
“Systems and processes to monitor the quality of the service were robust and action was taken when any problems were found.” from the report
Good partnership working
Staff worked with health and social care professionals. Health professionals gave positive feedback about the manager, staff and quality of care.
“The registered manager and staff worked in partnership with other health and social care professionals involved in the care people using the service received to promote good outcomes.” from the report
Activities staffing
minorAn activities worker had recently left and a replacement was still being recruited. One person said they missed taking part in different activities.
“The registered manager told us the recruitment of activities staff was ongoing.” from the report
- 01How are activities being provided while recruitment of activities staff is ongoing?
- 02How will relatives receive information about bedrails and the risks linked to their use?
- 03How can relatives give feedback, and when are relatives' meetings being held?
- 04How do you review staffing levels against each person's changing needs?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, prompted partly by concerns about safety risks; the other key questions were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward when calculating the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 September 2022 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.
What inspectors found, February 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, with improvements in management since the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 7 January 2019. The inspector and an expert-by-experience spoke with people, relatives and staff. They also checked care, medicines and safety records, observed lunchtime and reviewed meetings.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, clean premises and care that respected people's dignity, choices and individual needs.
The activities programme had improved since the previous inspection. The home had also improved its care records and quality checks. The overall Good rating stayed the same, and inspectors found no serious risks or concerns.
Safe medicines
Inspectors found that medicines were stored, given and recorded safely. Checks were used to identify and correct errors.
“Medicine records were accurate, and regular checks of medicine systems ensured any errors were identified and put right.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff understood people's needs and supported their independence. Inspectors saw people being treated with dignity and respect.
“Staff cared for people with compassion, but encouraged them to do as much for themselves as possible.” from the report
More varied activities
The activities programme had improved since the last inspection. The home had links with local groups and offered activities such as singing, quizzes and community events.
“The activity team had also worked hard to establish links with the local community to bring activities to people in the home” from the report
Improved management
The home had improved its care records and quality checks since the previous inspection. The new manager was seen as approachable and involved in daily work.
“During this visit we found care records had been reviewed and updated to ensure there was a written and accurate record of people's changing needs” from the report
Care plans not always read
needs fixingStaff said they did not often have time to read care plans and risk assessments. They mainly received updates through handovers and discussions with senior staff.
“Staff told us they did not often have time to read care plans and risk assessments” from the report
Questionnaires were difficult to use
minorThe quality questionnaire was lengthy and not written in plain English. Inspectors recommended making it easier for people to understand and complete.
“We found the questionnaires were lengthy and not written in plain English.” from the report
Some flooring needed replacing
minorSome floor coverings needed replacement. The home had identified this and was taking action.
“There were some floor coverings which needed replacing, but this had been identified and was being acted on.” from the report
- 01How do staff make sure they read each person's care plan and risk assessments?
- 02What action has been completed to replace the floor coverings identified as needing attention?
- 03How are people and relatives supported to give feedback if the questionnaire is difficult to complete?
- 04How often are medicines records and medicine systems checked?
- 05What activities are currently available for someone with my relative's interests and abilities?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, and the overall Good rating remained unchanged from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 February 2019 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.
Every inspection of Arbor House
3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- September 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 12 October 2015.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Leicester
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £980 to £1,270 a week. 83 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
“Tino was the most wonderfully rounded, empathetic and intuitive person. He not only developed a great relationship with Neville but also had a great working relationship with our existing carer.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.