CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Arthur Court
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 sufficient staff, safe medicines systems and safeguarding arrangements. However, risk assessments, incident follow-up, fire drills and radiator safety checks were not consistently effective.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- Staff knew people well and worked with healthcare professionals, and people were supported with food and healthcare. However, assessments, support plans and some mental capacity and best-interest records were not robust.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff supported people to make choices, develop independence and take part in work, education, leisure and community activities.
- Responsive?
- Good
- The report does not give a separate rating or detailed findings for Responsive.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- People, relatives and staff described a positive and open culture, with visible management and good communication. However, governance systems, audits, documentation and knowledge of relevant guidance were not consistently effective.
What inspectors found, December 2023
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care and safe medicines, but important risks and record-keeping were not managed consistently.
Inspectors visited on 17 and 19 October 2023. They spoke with people, a relative, staff and healthcare professionals. They reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff files and management checks.
People were generally positive about the home. Staff were kind and compassionate, staffing levels were sufficient, medicines were managed safely, and the home was clean, well maintained and homely.
However, care plans and risk assessments were not always complete or accurate. Some incidents were not properly investigated or used to improve care. Checks and audits did not reliably identify or correct these problems.
The overall rating is Requires Improvement. Safe, Effective and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement, while Caring was rated Good. This is a fall from the previous Outstanding rating, published in 2016.
Kind relationships
People, relatives and healthcare professionals gave positive feedback. Inspectors saw kind and compassionate interactions, and people said staff supported them well.
“During our inspection we observed kind interactions between people and staff.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs, including one-to-one support for activities and visits. Recruitment checks and induction processes promoted safety.
“The service had enough staff to meet people's needs, including for one-to-one support for people to take part in activities and visits how and when they wanted.” from the report
Medicines managed safely
Medicines were stored, administered and checked safely. After a medication error was identified, an electronic scanning system was introduced and no further errors were recorded.
“Medicines were stored and administered safely in line with the providers processes.” from the report
Support for independence
People were encouraged to make choices, learn skills and take part in work, education, leisure and community activities.
“Staff supported and encouraged people to be as independent as possible.” from the report
Incomplete risk guidance
seriousCare plans and risk assessments did not always explain clearly how staff should reduce risks or support people during distress. This included choking, constipation and mental health needs.
“care plans and risk assessments were not robustly detailed to inform staff how to reduce risks to people, and support and reduce any distress.” from the report
Poor incident follow-up
seriousSome incidents were not properly investigated, and lessons were not recorded or used to update care plans and risk assessments. There was no formal system for identifying trends.
“The service had not managed incidents affecting people's safety well.” from the report
Fire and radiator risks
seriousThere was no documented evidence that all staff had taken part in a fire drill, and no night-time fire drills had taken place. Some radiators were unguarded without risk assessments.
“There had been no fire drills completed at night, this presented a safety and fire risk.” from the report
Ineffective audits
needs fixingManagement checks did not reliably identify gaps in care plans, risk assessments, bowel monitoring or respectful wording. The provider had plans to improve this through new electronic systems.
“Staff completed a series of checks and audits, however there was no management oversight of these checks to ensure that any areas for improvement were being identified.” from the report
- 01What specific changes have been made to care plans and risk assessments for choking, constipation, distress and mental health needs?
- 02How are accidents and incidents now investigated, recorded and used to update people's care plans?
- 03Have all staff completed the planned training in supporting people with a learning disability and autistic people, and the planned de-escalation training?
- 04Have night-time fire drills taken place, and have the unguarded radiators been made safe or risk assessed?
- 05How does management now check that audits identify and correct gaps in records and care?
This inspection looked at the overall quality of the care home, including the premises and care provided; the report does not give a separate Responsive rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 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, June 2019
Arthur Court was inspected but not rated because no regulated activity was being provided.
CQC visited the home on 9 April 2019. It found that people were not receiving personal care at that time.
Because the regulated activity was not being provided, CQC could not assess or rate safety, effectiveness, caring, responsiveness or leadership in the usual way.
The report says the home may be removed from the CQC register because CQC can only regulate locations where a regulated activity is being provided.
Rehabilitation focus
The home is described as offering rehabilitation and opportunities to build independence skills.
“It provides opportunities for rehabilitation, development of independence skills and progression to supported accommodation” from the report
Community progression
The service description includes progression to supported accommodation in the community.
“progression to supported accommodation in the community such as supported living.” from the report
No regulated activity at inspection
seriousPersonal care was not being provided when CQC visited, so the report gives no ratings about the quality of care. The report also says the location may be removed from the CQC register.
“When we inspected on 9 April 2019 we found that people were not in receipt of 'personal care' and the regulated activity was therefore not being provided.” from the report
- 01Is the home now providing personal care or another regulated activity?
- 02Is the home currently on the CQC register, and if so, for which regulated activity?
- 03What has changed since the 9 April 2019 inspection?
- 04How do you provide rehabilitation and help people develop independence skills?
- 05How do you support progression to supported accommodation in the community?
This inspection found that no regulated activity was being provided, so none of the five CQC questions received a rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 June 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 Arthur Court
2 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has slipped, from Outstanding to Requires improvement.
- December 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2019Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not ratedEffective: Inspected but not ratedCaring: Inspected but not ratedResponsive: Inspected but not ratedWell-led: Inspected but not rated
- October 2016OutstandingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingWell-led: Outstanding
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 3 November 2010.
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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Kent
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. 33 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
“Irene was a very kind and empathetic carer who knew just the right words to say to put a smile on my face.”
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.