Arbour Court

The following is CQC's published account of its assessment, published 6 June 2025. References to “we” mean CQC. It describes findings at that time.

We carried out a site visit on 2, 9 and 22 April 2025.

Arbour Court is a care home providing personal and nursing care to people living with dementia and associated care needs. The service can support up to 60 people, with bedrooms which are single occupancy. There are shared communal lounges and dining areas, and accessible and secure garden areas.

We found that people and families were happy with the support and care they received and felt safe. Care records did not always demonstrate that risk was effectively managed, and we had concerns about the arrangements for people to access drinks and snacks when they wished; we discussed this with the registered manager. We also had some concerns about the management of people who chose to stay in their bedrooms and did not have access to a call bell or any other ways to summon staff assistance, and in some cases had their bedroom doors locked, although there were processes in place to ensure staff competed regular checks of people in their bedroom. The registered manager was responsive to the feedback and agreed to consider alternative approaches to manage the balance between people’s needs and risk. Staffing levels during the day were sufficient to meet people’s needs but we found staffing levels at night meant that staff needed to rush, and that people would need to wait for support regularly.

There were systems in place to ensure people ate well and the feedback from people and families was very positive, including around those who had a modified diet. One family told us, “I’ve been impressed with the food; even those who have pureed diet have food that is well presented and looks good to eat.” Families commented on how people’s health needs were met by staff at the home and how effective they had been in improving people outcomes and wellbeing. This included people who had arrived at the home on a palliative pathway and whose health had greatly improved. We found some improvement in how consent was being obtained and how the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act were being met as needed.

People and families spoke positively about the staff team. Staff were kind and caring and generally worked well together as a team. Staff generally knew people well and had a good understanding of their support needs. However, some aspects of care were not being consistently delivered, such as areas of personal care including oral care. Some records including daily notes lacked evidence of personalised care, including information about people’s end of life wishes.

People and families spoke positively of the registered manager, felt they were approachable and would respond to any concerns raised. There were suitable systems in place to ensure people’s views were sought and action taken. The registered manager completed a number of checks and audits of the home, but these did not always cover areas where we found concerns. The management team felt supported by the provider and were responsive to any feedback given.