CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Arran Manor
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Staffing levels matched people's needs, medicines were managed safely and infection prevention arrangements were in place, although some risk assessments had not been reviewed since 2020.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received support from trained staff and had their health, nutrition and communication needs assessed. Some care plans and assessments were not up to date, but the manager was updating them.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors found kind, compassionate and respectful care. People and relatives were involved in decisions and staff supported privacy, dignity and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Support was personalised and reflected people's needs, interests and preferences. People could raise concerns, take part in activities and help shape the service.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The manager had systems for monitoring quality and safety, but these were not always consistent or regularly reviewed. Audits missed some shortfalls in records, recruitment files, induction records and learning from incidents.
What inspectors found, June 2023
Arran Manor rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, safe care, but the well-led rating was Requires Improvement because checks and records were not always robust.
This was an unannounced inspection on 11 May 2023. One inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with 2 people, contacted 9 relatives and spoke with 4 staff. They reviewed 4 care files, 4 staff files, medicines, training, risk management and quality checks.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines procedures, positive support with food and healthcare, kind care, and personalised support. People were involved in decisions and were supported to make choices.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Well-led. Some care plans and risk assessments had not been reviewed since 2020. Staff recruitment files and induction records needed minor improvements, and quality audits had not identified all the shortfalls. The overall rating remained Good.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors found that staff treated people with compassion, dignity and respect. Relatives and people gave positive feedback about staff.
“People received kind and compassionate care from staff who used positive, respectful language which people understood and responded well to.” from the report
Safe medicines
People received medicines as prescribed. Staff completed the required training and competency checks before supporting people with medicines.
“People were given their medicines safely and as prescribed, and it was recorded on their medicine administration record.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's likes, dislikes, interests and health needs. Staff knew people well and involved them and their relatives in care decisions.
“Care and support plans were personalised and reflected a good understanding of people's needs.” from the report
Choice and involvement
People were encouraged to make their own decisions while staff managed risks in the least restrictive way. Residents could help influence the service.
“People were encouraged to make their own decisions, while still minimising risk.” from the report
Out-of-date care records
needs fixingSome care plans and risk assessments had not been reviewed since 2020. Inspectors said this could create a potential risk for newer staff who rely on the records.
“However, some of these had not been reviewed since 2020.” from the report
Recruitment and induction records
minorRecruitment files needed minor improvements, including verifying references and recording proof of address. Some staff files did not contain written evidence of a completed induction.
“Minor improvements were needed to some staff recruitment files.” from the report
Quality checks did not find all shortfalls
needs fixingThe home's audits and quality systems were in place but were not always consistent or regularly reviewed. They did not identify all the problems found during the inspection.
“the management audits did not identify the shortfalls we found during the inspection.” from the report
- 01Have all care plans and risk assessments that were not reviewed since 2020 now been updated?
- 02How do you check that references are verified and proof of address is recorded in every staff file?
- 03How do you record and monitor staff inductions?
- 04What changes have you made to quality audits so they identify shortfalls before an inspection?
- 05How are lessons from accidents and incidents recorded and shared with staff?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control; the previous overall rating was Good in 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 June 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.
Every inspection of Arran Manor
3 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2022
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 March 2022.
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 Havering
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 £1,230 a week. 81 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Sidonia is a first class live-in carer whose dedication and thoughtfulness made her stay a happy experience.”
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
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.