CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at L'Arche Bognor Regis Jericho
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- The kitchen was unclean and needed refurbishment. Checks on the premises, fire safety actions and medicine storage did not always identify or manage risks.
- Effective?
- Good
- People had personalised care plans and were supported with communication, health care, food, choices and independence. Some DoLS authorisations had not been reviewed on time, although action was taken during the inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not separately rated in this focused inspection. Inspectors found kind and compassionate care, with privacy, dignity and personal choices respected.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not separately rated in this focused inspection. People were supported to follow their interests, take part in activities and access the local community.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The home's governance systems did not reliably monitor quality, safety, medicines, infection control, fire actions or DoLS expiry dates. Staff and relatives nevertheless described an open, supportive and person-centred culture.
What inspectors found, May 2022
L'Arche Bognor Regis Jericho is rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, person-centred care but safety checks and management systems were not reliable enough.
Inspectors made an unannounced focused visit on 22 March 2022. They spoke with all six people using the home, three relatives, five staff and two visiting professionals. They also observed care and checked care, medicine, staff and management records.
People were treated kindly and supported to make choices, build independence and take part in activities. Staff understood people's communication needs and supported their health, food choices, interests and links with the community. The Effective rating was Good.
The home was not always clean or well maintained. Kitchen hygiene checks, fire safety actions, medicine storage and checks on the living environment were not managed reliably. Some legal authorisations had expired without being reviewed. These weaknesses led to Requires Improvement ratings for Safe and Well-led, and a breach of Regulation 17.
Kind and respectful care
People received compassionate support. Staff protected privacy and dignity and understood people's individual needs.
“People received kind and compassionate care. Staff protected and respected people's privacy and dignity.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make decisions, go out, pursue interests and work towards their own goals.
“People had care and support plans that were personalised, holistic, strengths-based and reflected their needs and aspirations which promoted strategies to enhance independence.” from the report
Skilled staff
Staff had relevant training and understood communication tools and ways to reduce restrictive practices. The home had enough staff to provide planned one-to-one support.
“People were supported by staff who had received relevant and good quality training in evidence-based practice.” from the report
Learning from incidents
Staff reported and investigated safety incidents and used them to improve practice.
“Staff were able to demonstrate how incidents had informed their practice.” from the report
Kitchen hygiene and premises
needs fixingThe kitchen was unclean and needed refurbishment. Safety and infection control checks did not always identify problems or confirm that actions had been completed.
“The kitchen was unclean and in need of refurbishment.” from the report
Medicine storage
seriousSome medicines were found in other people's boxes, and the medicine administration room had limited usable space. Inspectors found no evidence of harm, but said this increased the potential risk of errors.
“People's medicines were stored in individual boxes in a small cupboard and some medicines were found in other people's boxes.” from the report
Missed legal reviews
needs fixingSome DoLS authorisations had not been reviewed within the required timescales. One authorisation had expired, although the home took action during the inspection.
“Some people had DoLs in place which had not been reviewed in line with timescales.” from the report
Weak management checks
seriousThe provider's systems did not reliably assess and monitor risks or the quality and safety of the home. This was the subject of a legal breach.
“The provider had failed to establish adequate systems and processes to assess and improve the quality and safety of the service provided or to assess and monitor risks.” from the report
- 01What improvements have been completed to clean and refurbish the kitchen, and how is its hygiene now checked?
- 02How are medicines stored so that each person's medicines remain in the correct box?
- 03How are fire risk assessment actions recorded and checked until they are completed?
- 04How do you make sure DoLS authorisations are reviewed before they expire?
- 05Who is currently responsible for management and quality checks while there is no registered manager?
This was a focused inspection to assess the Right support, right care, right culture principles, with infection prevention and control also checked; Caring and Responsive were not separately rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 May 2022 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, February 2018
L'Arche Bognor Regis Jericho was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements to records and confidentiality.
The inspection took place on 4 January 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff. They observed care and reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff files, rotas, training and complaints.
The home supports up to six adults with learning disabilities. Inspectors found enough skilled staff, safe medicines arrangements and good support with health, food and daily activities. People were involved in decisions and were encouraged to be independent.
People and relatives said staff were kind, caring and responsive. Care plans were detailed and personal. The home supported people to take part in community activities and to keep links with family, friends and faith communities.
The overall rating was Good, and all five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The home was also rated Good at the previous inspection in April 2015. Inspectors said action had been taken to improve records and confidentiality.
People felt safe
People and relatives said they felt safe. Staff understood how to recognise and report abuse, and there were enough staff to meet people's needs.
“People remained protected from the risk of abuse because staff understood how to identify and report it.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans described people's needs, communication and preferences. Staff adapted their approach and encouraged people to do things for themselves.
“The staff focussed on people's individual needs and it was evident that a lot of time and effort had been taken to get to know people's likes and dislikes and how they liked things to be done.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw warm interactions. Staff respected privacy, dignity, religion and personal choices.
“Observations of staffs' interactions showed warm and positive interactions.” from the report
Activities and independence
People were supported to take part in household tasks, community activities and interests such as music, pottery and attending a day centre.
“People were also supported to increase their independent living skills based on their individual capabilities.” from the report
Improved oversight
Quality checks covered areas including medicines, health and safety, infection control, care planning and training. Inspectors found that earlier record and confidentiality problems had been addressed.
“At this inspection we saw the provider had taken action to improve records and confidentiality following our last inspection.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are people involved in reviewing their care plans and choosing their weekly activities?
- 02How would you support my relative's particular communication needs, including the use of easy-read or pictorial information?
- 03How do you check that medicines are given and recorded safely?
- 04How do you support people to maintain their independence with cooking, cleaning, laundry and community activities?
- 05How can relatives raise concerns, and how are complaints discussed and acted on?
This inspection considered all five CQC areas and reviewed care, medicines, staffing, training, records, complaints and quality checks; the report says the previous inspection was on 27 April 2015. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 February 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.
Every inspection of L'Arche Bognor Regis Jericho
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- May 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at L'Arche Bognor Regis Jericho →
- February 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at L'Arche Bognor Regis Jericho →
- May 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 January 2011.
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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of West Sussex
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 £1,170 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
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.