Arbory Residential Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Improvements had been made following our previous inspection. The service made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. People were assessed prior to moving into the service. People were reviewed regularly once they had moved in and care plans and risk assessments were completed with people, reviewed and updated as required. Daily meetings were used to ensure any changes in people’s needs were acted on including seeking GP support as needed. One relative told us, “He has had a couple of choking incidents, and they are getting the Speech and Language Therapy team to keep him safe, they are really good.” Information was available to people in an accessible format to support them to remain involved in decisions relating to their care.

The service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. Universally recognised tools were used appropriately to continually assess people’s needs, such as relating to skin health and nutrition. Staff could describe the action they took when these tools identified an increased risk to people health.

The service worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services. A relative told us the service worked with the GP to ensure a good outcome for their loved one. They said, “It has been brilliant the way they have involved the doctor.”

Improvements had been made following our previous inspection. The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. The service supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. Relatives told us they were kept informed about their loved one’s health. One relative told us their loved one had a health issue. They said, “We took him to the hospital to have that assessed. The home organised it all for us.” There was a process in place to ensure a collaborative approach to escalating and reviewing people’s changing healthcare needs. The GP visited the service weekly to review people staff had identified as requiring. Most relatives told us people had access to chiropody and opticians.

The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. Relatives told us medical attention was sought for people when required. A relative told us, “The care plans are individually tailored for [person’s name] and they will liaise with us about his fluid and diet intake. They record it all on their phones or on a tablet. They are always able to tell me, and all kept updated and accurate.”

Improvements had been made following our previous inspection. The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. People were supported in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. When required mental capacity assessments were completed and best interest decisions took place. Others, such as relatives and/or advocates, where consulted as appropriate, when decisions were made about people’s care.