CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Arthur
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were assessed and managed, staffing numbers were sufficient and medicines were obtained, stored, given and disposed of safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had training in people's specific health needs and worked with external healthcare professionals. People were supported to make choices and received food and drink in line with their needs.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with respect and kindness. Staff used people's preferred communication methods and supported them to make decisions and remain as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed, personal and regularly reviewed. People were supported to follow their interests, achieve goals, keep relationships and take part in community activities.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found a caring culture, supportive management and systems for checking and improving quality. The day-to-day manager was applying to become the registered manager.
What inspectors found, October 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and highly personalised care, with no serious risks or concerns identified.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 15 September 2018. The inspector reviewed care records, medicines, risk assessments, staff recruitment and supervision records, accidents, complaints and how the home was run. They observed care and spoke with people, staff, managers and relatives.
The home supported six young adults with learning disabilities and complex physical disabilities. Inspectors found that risks were assessed, staffing levels were suitable, medicines were managed safely and staff had the training needed to support people's health conditions.
Inspectors found kind and respectful care. People were involved in decisions using communication methods suited to them. Care plans were detailed and regularly reviewed. People were supported with food, activities, relationships, independence and community life.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The overall Good rating stayed the same as at the previous inspection in February 2016. The report says there was no evidence of serious risks or concerns.
Personalised care
Care plans reflected people's individual needs, preferences, routines and goals. Staff used this information to provide consistent support.
“People received exceptionally personalised care and support specific to their needs and preferences.” from the report
Respect and choice
Staff supported people to communicate their wishes and make decisions in ways that suited them. People were treated as individuals and supported to be independent.
“People were treated respectfully and were involved in every decision possible.” from the report
Safe support
Risks were assessed for health conditions, equipment, activities and daily care. Medicines were checked and staff received regular medicines training and competency checks.
“Systems were in place that showed people's medicines were managed consistently and safely.” from the report
Meaningful activities
People took part in a wide range of activities, including community events, sports, entertainment and activities linked to their personal interests.
“People had recently taken part in a range of outdoor activities over the summer, including canoeing, zip wiring, abseiling, archery and bushcraft.” from the report
Good leadership
Managers sought feedback and used audits, meetings and action plans to monitor and improve the service. Staff said they felt supported.
“There was evidence of quality monitoring leading to continuous improvement and people were actively involved in the running of the service.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How is the change from the current registered manager to the day-to-day manager being managed?
- 02How would community nursing support be arranged if my relative needed nursing care?
- 03Which communication aids and methods would you use for my relative, and how would new staff learn to use them?
- 04How would you provide one-to-one support during the day and make sure staffing remains sufficient?
- 05Which activities and personal goals could my relative take part in, and how would you record their views?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions; the inspection did not use a formal SOFI observation because people were away or spending time in their bedrooms. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 October 2018 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, April 2017
Arthur rated Good; a focused inspection found safe recruitment, safeguarding training and clear care records after concerns were raised.
This was an unannounced, focused inspection on 15 February 2017. It followed information of concern from the local authority about staff recruitment and safeguarding training.
The inspector reviewed recruitment files for two staff members and care records for two people. They spoke with the registered manager and one staff member.
The home was rated Good for Safe. Inspectors found the required pre-employment checks were completed, including identity checks, references and police checks. Staff had safeguarding training and understood how to raise concerns.
The report only covers Safe. The previous inspection in February 2016 had rated all five key questions Good.
Safe staff recruitment
Recruitment files showed that identity checks, references and police checks had been completed. New staff also worked alongside experienced staff during a probationary period.
“Records showed staff had completed an application form, provided the home with proof of their identity and had undergone a formal interview process.” from the report
Safeguarding awareness
Staff received safeguarding training and their understanding was checked through supervision and appraisal. The staff member spoken with knew how to report concerns about people's wellbeing or poor practice.
“Records showed staff received training in safeguarding adults and the member of staff we spoke with was aware of their responsibilities to raise concerns over people's well-being or poor practice.” from the report
Clear risk guidance
The two care files reviewed gave staff clear instructions about people's care needs and how to reduce identified risks. Daily records described the care provided and people's activities.
“Risks were clearly identified and management plans were in place giving staff clear guidance about how to reduce these risks.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you make sure all pre-employment checks are completed before a new member of staff starts?
- 02When was each member of staff last given safeguarding training?
- 03How are staff checked during probation, supervision and appraisal to make sure they follow safe care procedures?
- 04How are people's risk plans reviewed when their care needs change?
- 05How do you record and act on advice from healthcare professionals such as community nurses?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe only; the other key question ratings carried over from the February 2016 inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 April 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 Arthur
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: Good
- March 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 12 August 2013.
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
17 live-in carers within about an hour of Devon
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 £1,270 a week. 15 can care for a couple. 13 years' experience on average.
“She is such a warm and gentle person while being professional and competent at the same time.”
“She looked after my mum, who can be incredibly challenging, so well and so gently, and we always felt confident that my mum was getting the best care available.”
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.