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.
- 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.
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.
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
Unsafe premises
seriousA 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
seriousThe 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
seriousCare 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
seriousAudits 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
- 01What has been done to make the kitchen gate, boiler room, flooring and hazardous-substance storage safe?
- 02How are medicine stock balances, as-required medicine protocols and disposal of old medicines checked now?
- 03What independent living skills and goals are recorded in each person's care plan?
- 04How are fire alarm servicing and other safety checks tracked so they are not missed?
- 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.
What inspectors found, October 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, and the home remained Good in all five areas.
This was an unannounced inspection on 30 August 2017. Inspectors observed care, spoke with relatives, staff, the manager and the provider, and checked care files, staff files and other records. The two people living at the home were non-verbal, so inspectors did not speak with them.
Inspectors found systems to protect people from abuse and manage risks. There were enough staff, medicines were managed safely, and recruitment checks had been completed. Staff had relevant training and supported people with food, healthcare, communication and activities.
Relatives described staff as kind and caring. Care plans were personalised and reviewed regularly. Inspectors also found that the home was well managed, listened to relatives and had procedures for complaints.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. It was also rated Good at the previous inspection in November 2015.
Safeguarding and risk management
Staff understood abuse and safeguarding procedures. Each person had a regularly reviewed risk assessment, and staff knew how to reduce identified risks.
“Each person had a risk assessment which detailed the hazards, risks and action required to minimise these risks.” from the report
Safe medicines practice
Inspectors checked the medicines for the one person receiving them and found accurate, up-to-date records with no gaps.
“We checked the person's medicines and Medicine Administration Record Sheets (MARS) and found that they were accurate and up to date.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors observed compassionate care and found that staff understood how people communicated. Privacy and dignity were respected.
“We observed staff were compassionate and caring. We noted staff had built good relationship with people” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans covered people's needs, choices, culture and faith. They were regularly reviewed and updated when needs changed.
“People received personalised care based on their care plans.” from the report
Activities and family contact
People were supported to take part in activities, go out and keep in touch with relatives. Relatives said they were happy with the activities.
“Records and the activity programme showed that a range of activities such as walks in the parks, trips to the seaside and day centres were available to people.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you make sure staffing remains sufficient if more people move into the home or residents' needs change?
- 02How will you communicate with my relative if they are non-verbal, and how will you record their choices and preferences?
- 03How are care plans reviewed with relatives and updated when a person's needs change?
- 04What activities would be available for my relative, including community activities and healthcare-related support?
- 05How would you handle and investigate a complaint, and how would you keep the family informed?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions; inspectors observed care and reviewed two people's care files, three staff files and other records. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 October 2017 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
3 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- December 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 August 2012.
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 Redbridge
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 £1,250 a week. 75 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Sidonia is a first class live-in carer whose dedication and thoughtfulness made her stay a happy experience.”
“Charity would take Nan on holidays day trips and shopping adventures”
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.