CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Arundel House - Frinton-on-Sea
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, September 2023
Arundel House - Frinton-on-Sea: Overall rating Inadequate and remains in special measures; inspectors found continuing problems with staffing, risk management, cleanliness and leadership.
This was an unannounced targeted inspection. Inspectors visited on 15 June and 12 July 2023, and checked staffing, risk management, infection control and governance. They spoke with people and staff, observed care and examined care and management records.
The home had not made enough improvement since the previous inspection. There were not enough suitably skilled staff, training and supervision were incomplete, and risk management and quality checks were not reliable. Some parts of the building were still dirty and unhygienic, and fire safety had not been fully assured.
There was one clear improvement. Inspectors found that medicines were being managed safely. The provider also put a sleep-in staff member in place at night after the inspection as an interim measure for fire evacuation.
The overall rating remained Inadequate and the home remained in special measures. The inspection did not reassess all five areas, so Safe and Well-led were marked inspected but not rated, while the previous inadequate overall rating carried forward.
Medicines
Medicines had improved since the previous inspection. Inspectors found that people received their medicines as they should.
“At this inspection we found medicines were managed safely and people received their medicines as they should.” from the report
Some hygiene improvements
Some toilets, sinks, shower chairs and bed pans were cleaner. Handwashing supplies and protective equipment were available.
“All toilet and handwashing facilities had hand soap, paper towel and toilet roll in appropriate covered dispensers.” from the report
Interim night staffing
After the inspection, the provider added a sleep-in staff member at night to support evacuation while fire safety was reviewed.
“Following our inspection, the provider instated a sleep-in staff member at night to support safe evacuation procedures if needed.” from the report
Incomplete staff training
seriousTraining remained outstanding in areas linked to people's needs, including moving and handling, swallowing difficulties, Huntington's disease and mental health. Staff also lacked knowledge in person-centred support and communication.
“Training for staff remained outstanding in subjects relevant to people's specific needs such as moving and handling, dysphagia, Huntington's disease and mental health.” from the report
Poor infection control
seriousSome parts of the home remained dirty and unhygienic. The cleaning programme and audits did not reliably identify or correct problems.
“The staff toilet and laundry facilities remained in poor condition and a risk of infection.” from the report
Fire safety not assured
seriousThe provider had not shown that recommendations from a 2021 fire risk assessment had been completed and maintained. Night staffing had previously been insufficient for evacuation.
“There was no evidence to demonstrate all recommendations had been completed and sustained to ensure fire safety” from the report
Weak leadership and checks
seriousThere had been no registered manager since June 2022. Audits and daily checks did not give an accurate picture of risks or the quality of the service.
“The provider's governance system was not operated effectively and did not provide an accurate overview of the service or outcomes for people.” from the report
Limited person-centred support
needs fixingSupport plans did not clearly set out how to build independence, pursue goals or respond to distress. Inspectors observed an activity continuing even though a person showed they did not want to take part.
“People did not receive the right support to maximise their choice, control, and independence.” from the report
- 01How many staff are on duty for each shift now, and how does this match each person's assessed and commissioned support hours?
- 02Which staff have completed practical refresher training in moving and handling, and how are their competencies checked?
- 03What has been done to complete and independently review all fire safety recommendations, including safe night-time evacuation?
- 04Which areas were still dirty or unhygienic at the inspection, and how will cleaning audits now prove that problems have been fixed?
- 05Who is currently responsible for day-to-day management, and how are weekly improvement actions checked and reported?
This was a targeted inspection of specific concerns about safe care, risk management, infection control, staffing and governance; it did not assess all areas, so the Safe and Well-led ratings were not changed and the previous overall rating carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 September 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, March 2023
Rated Inadequate and placed in special measures; inspectors found serious concerns about safety, staffing, person-centred care and leadership.
This was an unannounced full inspection. Inspectors visited on 26 and 31 January 2023, observed care, spoke with staff and relatives, and reviewed care records, staff files, training and management records.
The home was not consistently safe. Inspectors found unsafe medicine management, incomplete risk information, poor infection control, dirty areas and not enough staff at some times. They also found incidents and possible abuse had not always been reported or investigated properly.
People received kind care and their health, food and drink needs were generally supported. However, care plans were not up to date, staff training was incomplete, and people were not consistently supported to make choices, build independence, take part in activities or access the community.
The overall rating was Inadequate. Safe, responsive and well-led were rated Inadequate. Effective and caring were rated Requires Improvement. The home was placed in special measures, which means CQC will keep it under review and normally re-inspect within six months.
Kind staff
Inspectors found that staff could be warm, attentive and compassionate. Staff generally knew when people needed privacy and space.
“People received kind and compassionate care from staff. Staff knew when people needed their space and privacy and respected this.” from the report
Health support
People's health conditions were being managed, with contact with GPs, nurses and other professionals when needed.
“People's health conditions were being managed, and staff engaged with external healthcare professionals including GP's, district nurses and other professionals when necessary.” from the report
Food and drink
People had access to drinks and snacks, and the meals prepared were homemade. Staff knew people's food preferences.
“People were supported to eat and drink enough to maintain a balanced diet. People's preferences were known by staff.” from the report
Emergency planning
Emergency evacuation plans were detailed and regularly reviewed. The home had practised evacuation procedures.
“The service had detailed Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans [PEEPs] in place, which were regularly reviewed and updated.” from the report
Safeguarding failures
seriousPossible abuse, unexplained bruising, choking and repeated shouting between residents had not always been recognised, reported or investigated properly. Safeguarding investigations were still taking place at the time of the report.
“The provider had failed to implement robust procedures to protect people from abuse.” from the report
Unsafe medicines
seriousMedicine patches were not recorded properly, a medicine had been split unevenly, and stock records did not match the medicines held. Audits had not identified these problems.
“People's medicines were not managed and administered safely which placed people at risk of harm.” from the report
Not enough staff
seriousOn one morning, one staff member was left supporting nine people while other staff cleaned or accompanied someone into the community. On an afternoon, two staff supported nine people and the evening meal was late.
“There were insufficient numbers of staff to adequately meet people's needs. This placed people at risk of harm.” from the report
Poor care planning
seriousCare plans and risk assessments were incomplete, generic or out of date. They did not always explain people's current needs, communication support, sensory needs or goals.
“People's care records and risk assessments were not always updated to provide staff with the information they needed to ensure people were safe and cared for appropriately.” from the report
Too little meaningful activity
needs fixingPeople were often sitting in the lounge with little to do. The home did not provide enough community activities or support people to develop skills, maintain relationships or follow their interests.
“Sufficient opportunities for people to engage in community-based activities that were relevant to them, had not been provided.” from the report
Poor leadership and oversight
seriousManagement audits did not lead to effective improvements. Important problems with staffing, risks, medicines, infection control and care planning had not been addressed.
“All of the above demonstrates a failure to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service.” from the report
- 01How many staff are now scheduled on each shift, including when staff are cleaning, cooking or taking someone to an appointment?
- 02How are medicines, medicine patches and stock records now checked for accuracy?
- 03How are safeguarding concerns, unexplained injuries and incidents now reported, investigated and reviewed for lessons?
- 04Which people's care plans and risk assessments have been updated, and how are people and their relatives involved in reviewing them?
- 05What regular activities, community visits and support for relationships are now available for each person?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, the premises and care provided; inspectors observed care, spoke with seven staff and six relatives, and reviewed five people's care records. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 March 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 Arundel House - Frinton-on-Sea
3 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Inadequate.
- September 2023Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not ratedWell-led: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Arundel House - Frinton-on-Sea →
- March 2023Inadequatedown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
Read what inspectors found at Arundel House - Frinton-on-Sea →
- June 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 September 2020.
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
35 live-in carers within about an hour of Essex
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 £1,260 a week. 25 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums life.”
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.