CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Arlington House
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, January 2021
Arlington House is rated Good; inspectors found safe, responsive care and strong management after earlier problems were addressed.
This was a focused inspection on 17 December 2020. One inspector reviewed care plans, risk assessments, medicines records, staffing documents and quality checks. They also spoke with people, relatives, staff and other professionals, and observed care in the home.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable risk assessments, safe medicines practices and appropriate COVID-19 infection control. People were supported with personalised care, activities, relationships and communication.
The previous inspection rated the home Requires Improvement, with breaches involving safeguarding and staffing. Inspectors found that enough improvement had been made and the home was no longer in breach. The overall rating changed to Good.
This was not a full review of every area of care. The ratings for Effective and Caring were carried forward from the previous comprehensive inspection.
Safeguarding improved
The home had strengthened its safeguarding arrangements. Concerns were identified, reported to the local authority and escalated in line with its procedures.
“The provider had consistently made the local authority aware of safeguarding incidents in line with their safeguarding policies to ensure people were protected from potential abuse.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs safely. People who needed extra help with moving or eating were supported patiently.
“There were sufficient staff in place to ensure people remained safe and met their needs.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans gave staff detailed information about people's needs, preferences and changing circumstances. Staff were knowledgeable about supporting people living with dementia.
“Care plans were detailed and provided personalised information for staff.” from the report
Strong management
Quality checks and management oversight had improved. Managers had clear responsibilities and worked with outside professionals to improve care.
“The registered manager had made significant improvements to quality assurance systems to ensure that services were delivered consistently and to improve care.” from the report
Family contact
During the COVID-19 restrictions, the home used communication, activities and an outside visiting pod to help people stay connected with relatives.
“The provider had constructed an external visitor's pod to allow safe and organised visits by loved ones.” from the report
Activities during restrictions
minorThe home was still reviewing staffing arrangements to maintain activities and engagement during the pandemic and government restrictions. Ask how this is managed now and how it would work for your relative.
“The registered manager stated that they were reviewing staffing arrangements to determine how to improve and ensure that activities and engagement continued for people during the national pandemic and restrictions imposed by the government.” from the report
- 01How would you meet my relative's specific risks, such as falls, swallowing difficulties, diabetes or dementia?
- 02How do you check that staffing levels remain sufficient for people's needs, including at mealtimes and when people need help to move?
- 03How are activities and social contact maintained when visitors or normal routines are restricted?
- 04How are medicines checked, especially medicines that must be given at particular times or when needed?
- 05How would you involve our family in care planning and tell us about any changes in our relative's health or routine?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Responsive and Well-led; Effective and Caring were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward into the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 January 2021 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, May 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care, but safeguarding, staffing, activities and oversight needed improvement.
This was the first inspection since the current provider registered the home. Inspectors visited without notice on 2 and 4 April 2019. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and a health professional, and reviewed care records, recruitment files, training, medicines, incidents, complaints and audits.
People were treated kindly and with respect. Their care plans were personalised, their food and healthcare needs were supported, and the home was clean. People and relatives generally said they felt safe and could raise concerns.
However, people were not always protected because two possible safeguarding incidents had not been reported promptly. Staffing levels and deployment did not always meet people's needs, including their need for activities and supervision. The home also needed stronger oversight, and there was no registered manager.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Caring was rated Good. Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Requires Improvement. The provider was asked to set out the action it would take, and CQC said it would check that action.
Kind and respectful care
People were comfortable with staff and inspectors saw patient, calm interactions. Staff protected privacy and encouraged people to make choices.
“Staff are always calm and welcoming and give you a smile.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's histories, communication needs, preferences and health needs. Relatives were involved in care planning when they had authority to do so.
“Care plans were personalised detailing life histories including people's achievements both personal and in their working life.” from the report
Food and healthcare
People had meal choices, specialist diets and snacks. Staff arranged healthcare support when needed and worked with health professionals.
“People's nutritional needs were met. At least two choices were provided at mealtimes and people were able to eat at their own pace” from the report
Clean environment
The provider was addressing inherited environmental problems. Inspectors found the home, furnishings and bedding clean.
“The home including furnishings and bedding was seen to be clean and smelt fresh.” from the report
Safeguarding was not always reported
seriousTwo incidents that could have required safeguarding enquiries were not reported promptly to the local authority or CQC. Staff did not consistently understand how to identify and report abuse.
“People had been at risk of potential abuse due to shortfalls in staff training and understanding of safeguarding.” from the report
Staffing and supervision
seriousStaffing levels and deployment did not always keep people safe or meet their needs. Inspectors saw people at risk of falls moving around communal areas without staff present.
“Failure to ensure there were sufficient numbers of staff suitably deployed to ensure people's support and care needs were met consistently and safely was a breach of Regulation 18” from the report
Activities had reduced
needs fixingAfter the activities coordinator left, there were no focused group or individual activities for people needing encouragement to take part. The replacement approach had not yet been fully put in place.
“Throughout the inspection there were no focussed group or individual activities for people who would require encouragement to socialise or take part in an interest, hobby or sensory activity.” from the report
Management oversight
needs fixingQuality systems had improved but were not yet reliably checking recruitment evidence, topical medicines records and care planning. There was also no registered manager at the inspection.
“Despite the improvements identified, the governance framework needed further embedding and had not ensured the delivery of high quality and safe care.” from the report
CCTV had not been fully reviewed
needs fixingConsent had been obtained for CCTV in communal areas, but the home had not shown that it had considered whether this was necessary or whether less restrictive options were available.
“We recommend that the service seek suitable guidance in relation to the use of CCTV within a residential setting.” from the report
- 01How are safeguarding concerns identified, recorded and reported to the local authority and CQC now?
- 02What staffing levels are in place at busy times, such as mealtimes, and how are communal areas kept under supervision?
- 03Who is currently managing the home, and is there now a registered manager?
- 04What regular activities are available for people who need encouragement, including people living with dementia?
- 05What review has been completed of the CCTV in communal areas, and what less restrictive options were considered?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection of all five CQC questions and included the care provided and the premises. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 May 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 Arlington House
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- January 2021Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2019Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 4 June 2018.
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
46 live-in carers within about an hour of Brighton and Hove
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 £1,020 to £1,280 a week. 37 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Lottie showed incredible patience and empathy, adapting her routine to fit in with Mum's moods. Most importantly, Lottie's cheerful manner helped Mum to get some enjoyment out of life.”
“He was infinitely patient with them and got on very well with us to the extent that we now regard him as a personal friend.”
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.