Anco Care Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

All quality statements in this key question were reviewed. We could not look at all evidence categories due to the only member of care staff also being the company director. Since the last inspection a new registered manager was appointed who was aware of the poor regulatory history of this service. They had implemented a range of documentation and processes to introduce effective oversight of all areas of the service. These systems were in use although it was early days and there was limited evidence available to measure the overall effectiveness against. Processes under all of the quality statements in this key question required to be embedded into practice and sustained over time.

This service scored 25 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Anco Care Ltd has had a poor regulatory history since 2019. The provider has failed to make and sustain improvements and as a result the rating at the last inspection deteriorated to Inadequate overall. The day to day running of the service was taken over by a new registered manager and new nominated individual in December 2023. The registered manager is keen to promote a positive culture of good care underpinned by effective systems and processes. This needs to be embedded into practice and sustained over time.

Since the last inspection a new manager was appointed. Since arriving in post they have implemented a range of new documentation and processes to establish and maintain effective oversight of key areas of the service. The registered manager was supportive of the assessment process and keen to build their experience and skills in the role. They took an open and transparent approach throughout the assessment. They talked to us about how they managed the current situation where they were responsible for overseeing the work of the company director, who was working in the role of care assistant at the time of assessment.

We reviewed this quality statement but there was insufficient evidence available to make any judgement on this evidence category or change to the existing score.

At the time of assessment there was 1 care worker who was undertaking all visits to the person receiving support. The care worker was also the company director. There was insufficient evidence available to make a judgement on this evidence category or change to the existing score.

The registered manager had introduced a range of new documentation and processes since joining the service. This included new audit and quality assurance processes which were being used to develop and maintain effective oversight of key areas. We saw some examples where these checks identified improvement actions which were followed up on and recorded. The nominated individual was also involved in undertaking quality assurance audits. All of these new processes needed to be tested out over time and embedded into practice.

There was insufficient evidence available to make a judgement on this evidence category or change to the scoring. The registered manager had a ‘professional contact log’ which showed communication with health or social care professionals about the person who received support. We could see this was used when needed. The registered manager was aware of the importance of working collaboratively with other agencies to ensure people received good quality care.

The registered manager was aware of the poor regulatory history of the service and since joining the service had introduced a range of new processes and documentation. They used a service improvement plan to track areas which had been identified for action and improvement. Following the last inspection the provider had commissioned an external consultant who was still offering support. There was evidence of the new systems and processes being used to support the delivery of a good service to the person receiving support. However, at the time of assessment there was limited evidence available. The ongoing improvements needed to be embedded into practice and sustained over a period of time.