We carried out a review of the data available to us about Arbor Way on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Arbor Way, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
¿ When visitors arrived, they were screened for symptoms of COVID-19. This included having their temperature recorded to make sure their visit could take place safely. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) was also provided to visitors.
¿ Information had been shared with people in an easy read format which helped them to understand COVID-19 and the associated risks.
¿ Staff had adapted social activities to keep people active and occupied during the pandemic which had a positive effect on wellbeing.
¿ People had ‘memory blankets’ which reminded them of the outings they had enjoyed prior to lockdown restrictions, and to give them hope they will be able to do them again in the future.
¿ Staff had used creative ways to alleviate one person’s fear of PPE. A face mask had been put onto the person’s soft toy which had reduced the person’s level of anxiety and had resulted in them feeling comfortable to wear a face make when they went out to keep themselves safe.
¿ An employee assistance programme offered staff support and advice. A mental health tool kit provided guidance on how to stay healthy and well during the pandemic.
¿ The senior leadership team had shared learning and updates and positive news stories about COVID-19 throughout the organisation to ensure staff worked in line with best practice and government guidance.
People’s experience of using this service:
People enjoyed living at Arbor Way and felt comfortable and at ease with staff that understood how to keep them safe. Staff recruitment processes included a check of their background to review staff suitability to work at the home. The home was clean and odour free and staff understood how to minimise the spread of infection. Staff understood the risks to people’s health and best to support people. When a new risk to people developed, the registered manager understood how to support staff to understand the risks and support people accordingly. Accidents and incidents were recorded for the registered manager to monitor.
The registered manager ensured people's care was based on best practice standards and staff had the correct training to meet people's needs. Guidance on people's needs was also shared through supervision and staff meetings. People were offered choices at mealtimes and supported with a specialist diet were appropriate. People were supported to attend healthcare appointments and advice from healthcare professionals was incorporated into people's care. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this.
People were treated with dignity and respect and their independence was promoted. People and their families were involved in planning their care with support from staff. Staff supported people to enjoy a range of activities which reflected people's individual interests. People were supported to feedback what they thought about the care. Systems were in place to take any learning from any complaints made.
Staff enjoyed working at the home enjoyed working with the registered manager. Staff supported the registered manager to ensure people's care was continually monitored, reviewed and reflected changing needs. The registered provider undertook their own checks to ensure they were assured about the care people received.
Rating at last inspection: Good. The last report for Arbor was published on February 2016.
Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection. The service remained rated Good overall.
Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our inspection programme. If any concerning information is received, we may inspect sooner.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Arbour Way provides residential care and support for up to five people with a learning disability. The service is located in a residential area. At the time of our inspection there were four people at the home.
A registered manager was in post. A registered manager is person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
Arbor Way provided good care and support for the people that lived there. People were encouraged to lead fulfilling lives in line with their own preferences and choices. The emphasis was on supporting people to be as independent as possible. People were involved in making decisions about their care and how the service was run.
Care and support plans contained clear and up to date information about how people wanted their needs met. There were good opportunities for people to discuss any concerns or ideas that they had about their care.
People were supported in having their health needs met. Health services such as psychologists, dentists, GPs and opticians were used as required. We saw that medicines were administered by staff who had received training to ensure that this was done in a safe way.
Staff were knowledgeable about the needs of each person and how they preferred to live their lives. Staff received the training they required and were supported through regular ‘supervision’ meetings with the registered manager. There were safe recruitment practices in place for new staff and there were a sufficient number of staff on duty to meet people’s needs.
There were good systems in place to keep people safe. Staff were confident about their responsibilities in relation to safeguarding and also knew who they could contact if they had any concerns about the service.
Risks in peoples’ day to day lives had been identified and measures put in place to keep people safe. There was a positive approach to risk taking so that people could be as independent as possible. The focus was on how each person benefited from the activity undertaken.
The staff team were aware of the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). These are safeguards put in place to protect people where their freedom of movement is restricted. All the people who lived at the home had a DoLS authorisation due to the level of supervision provided. Staff had been trained in the MCA and had a good awareness of issues related to capacity and consent.
Staff told us that the service was well managed and that there was good support provided by the management team. The registered manager promoted a culture of respect, involvement and independence. There were systems in place to make sure that the quality of care was maintained and areas that required improvement were identified and necessary action taken.
We saw that people were relaxed with staff. We saw people smiled and made positive gestures to staff when they interacted with them. Staff had a good knowledge of people's needs. They were able to explain in detail how people's needs were met whilst also enabling people to be independent.
We saw people were asked what they wanted to do throughout the day and were given choices at mealtimes. People were able to communicate their needs to staff by using occasional words and gestures. Staff were able to determine people's consent and needs in this way.
We saw good systems in place to support people with their meals and dietary needs. External professional support had been sought to make sure people could be supported safely and appropriately.
We saw people's medicines were being given as required. We also saw medicines were regularly audited to make sure they were being managed appropriately.
There was an easy read complaints procedure in place and we were told copies of the comments and complaints process was provided to people and their relatives at the point of using the service. No complaints had been received about this service.
We saw that people were relaxed and happy with the staff supporting them. People were smiling and made positive gestures when staff spoke to them.
We looked at a sample of care plans. These documents provided staff with the information they required to meet people's needs. Plans included details of people's personal care and support, health needs and risk assessments.
During our visit we saw that care staff understood people's communication and responded to their requests. We observed that staff carried out their role in a pleasant and patient manner.
Staff knew what to do to keep people safe. Staff said they would have no hesitation reporting concerns or poor practice to the manager. The home had a process for assessing and managing risk associated with people's care.
People who lived in the home and their relatives were asked for their views about their care and treatment. All the people living at the home had a relative or outside person involved in their care. Returned questionnaires from a recent survey indicated that relatives were satisfied with the care provided by the home.