CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Arlington House Residential Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection control, including visiting, admissions, testing, protective equipment, hygiene and managing possible outbreaks.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, December 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control and safe visiting arrangements during the pandemic.
Inspectors visited the home on 11 November 2020. The visit was announced and formed part of a national review of infection prevention and control in care homes.
They found safe arrangements for visits, new admissions, testing, shielding and social distancing. Staff used protective equipment correctly, and there was a good supply of it.
The home helped people keep in touch with family and friends using technology. Support bubbles in communal areas helped reduce anxiety and supported relationships.
This was not a full inspection of all aspects of care. The service was inspected but not rated, so the report does not give an overall quality rating.
Safe visiting
The home had procedures to reduce the risk of infection during visits and planned a separate family visiting area for winter.
“The service followed safe visiting procedures to minimise the spread of infection.” from the report
Correct protective equipment
There was enough suitable protective equipment, and staff used and disposed of it correctly.
“There was a good stock of the right standard of PPE and staff used and disposed of it correctly.” from the report
Support for family contact
Staff helped people keep regular contact with family and friends through technology during the pandemic.
“Staff reassured people throughout the pandemic and provided them with the support they needed to maintain regular contact with family and friends through the use of technology.” from the report
Safe admissions
The home had procedures for admitting new residents and gave them extra support to protect their health and wellbeing.
“Safe procedures were in place for admitting people into the service.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How does the home manage visits now, including visits during periods of infection risk?
- 02How are new residents supported and tested when they move into the home?
- 03How does the home keep its protective equipment supply and infection control guidance up to date?
- 04How are residents supported to keep in touch with family and friends if in-person visits are restricted?
This was an announced thematic review focused on infection prevention and control; it did not provide ratings for the other areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 December 2020 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, January 2020
Arlington House Residential Care Home was rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care but gaps in risk and care records.
This was a planned, unannounced inspection on 22 and 25 October 2019. One inspector spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff, and reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe, staff knew them well, and relatives spoke positively about the care and relationships.
Inspectors found some records were not complete or up to date. Risk assessments for one piece of equipment had not been completed, and records about mental capacity and best-interest decisions did not always contain enough detail. The home was asked to consider best-practice guidance in these areas.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe, and staff were available to meet their needs. Medicines, recruitment, infection control and safety checks were managed appropriately.
“People told us they felt safe living at the service.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff knew people well and had formed positive relationships with them. People and relatives described the staff team positively.
“Staff knew people well and it was evident from their interactions with people that positive relationships had been formed.” from the report
Trained staff and suitable support
Staff had the knowledge, skills and experience needed for their roles. People received support with food, healthcare and their individual needs.
“Staff had the right knowledge, skills and experience to meet people's needs effectively.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People had access to activities in the home and local community. Staff supported people to stay in touch with family and friends and helped reduce social isolation.
“People had access to activities within the service and the local community to offer stimulation to prevent social isolation.” from the report
Missing equipment risk assessment
needs fixingAn assessment had not been completed for one item of equipment used to support people's independence. Inspectors recommended that the home review its approach to risk assessment.
“However, assessments had not taken place for an item of equipment in use to support people with their independence” from the report
Mental capacity records
needs fixingRecords did not always show clearly how best-interest decisions had been made or include full information about people legally entitled to make decisions. Inspectors recommended following current best practice.
“Information relating to people unable to make specific decisions was not always recorded in detail.” from the report
Incomplete care records
needs fixingSome records showing that care had been delivered were not fully completed. The manager was reviewing care planning documents, but quality checks had not always found these gaps.
“Not all of these records were fully completed.” from the report
- 01What risk assessment is now in place for the equipment used to support people's independence?
- 02How do you record best-interest decisions when someone cannot make a particular decision?
- 03How do you make sure records show that planned care has been delivered and are fully completed?
- 04What checks now identify gaps in care records before they become a problem?
- 05How are relatives involved in care plan reviews and decisions about care?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection covering the home, the care provided and all five CQC questions; the previous overall rating was Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 January 2020 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 Residential Care Home
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Arlington House Residential Care Home →
- January 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Arlington House Residential Care Home →
- April 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 5 February 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 Warrington
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 £1,260 a week. 90 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“He developed a close affinity with Terence, spending time talking with him before he retired to bed and looking after his needs during the night.”
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.