We carried out a review of the data available to us about Anchor House 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 Anchor House, you can give feedback on this service.
Anchor House is registered to accommodate up to seven people. At the time of our inspection there were seven people living at the home in one adapted building in a residential area of Poole.
We found examples of good practice which included the following:
Each person had a 'My Covid-19 Visiting Support Plan. This helped identify their needs and any risks in relation to the pandemic. There was clear guidance for visitors to understand what was expected of them with regards Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) procedures. There was a supply of fluid repellent surgical masks for visitors and additional Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) including aprons and gloves if visitors were intending to meet with people living there. All visitors were met, health screened and escorted by staff during visits to monitor compliance with infection control and ensure peoples' and staff member's safety. All visits were pre-booked to reduce the numbers of people in the home at any one time. When face to face visits were not possible, the home had supported alternative ways of people staying in touch with those important to them via email, telephone and video calls. The home was exploring how to safely support indoor visits in the winter months.
When people had needed to isolate or shield, staff had helped them to do this. A regular group of staff supported people to maintain consistency and reduce the risk of cross infection. The layout of the lounge had been modified to support social distancing guidelines. Staff wore PPE in line with government guidance.
To help maintain people's wellbeing staff provided enhanced levels of interaction including additional personalised sensory activities. Staff had created three flower beds in the large, secure outside space which gave people stimulation through colour, smell and texture.
The home used two devices for Aerosol Generating Procedures (AGP). The up to date IPC policy provided clear detail about how these should be operated safely. Staff understood and followed this guidance. The home had ensured staff had and wore all the necessary enhanced PPE to carry out these procedures. The local fire service had provided training to make sure the required masks fit well and kept staff safe.
The home had an IPC lead in place. Allocated staff were required to conduct daily environmental audits to ensure cleaning was kept to a high standard. The home was visibly clean throughout.
Anchor House is registered to accommodate up to seven people. At the time of our inspection seven people with learning disabilities were living there. The home consists of a main building with bedrooms, an office, a kitchen, a dining area and lounge.
The service had been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.
At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection. At this inspection we found the service remained good overall.
There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a 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.
Staff cared about the well being of people living in the home and knew how they preferred their care and support to be given. We received positive feedback from relatives and people about the kindness of staff. Staff understood how to identify and report abuse and were well supported in their roles. Staff received training to enable them to carry out their roles competently.
People were supported by safely recruited staff and there were enough appropriately trained and experienced staff to support people in ways that suited them. Communication styles and methods were tailored to individual people and staff supported people to understand the choices available to them.
People were supported to make choices about how they spent their days. Staff had a good knowledge and understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and promoted independence and choice. Where people were not able to make a specific decision, staff acted in accordance with the MCA.
People were enabled to have choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible.
People’s health care needs were met and staff supported them to see healthcare professionals when appropriate. They were supported to take their medicines safely by staff who had received the appropriate levels of training.
People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect by a staff team who knew them very well.
There was a clear complaints policy and relatives told us they knew how to make a complaint if the needed to and felt any concerns would be taken seriously and action taken straight away.
There were quality assurance systems in place to drive improvement and ensure the home offered a safe, effective, caring and responsive service.
At our last inspection in October 2015 we found multiple breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. We issued warning notices in relation to person-centred care, safe care and treatment including the management of medicines, and governance and record keeping, requiring the provider to meet the regulations by 29 January 2016. We also required the provider to take action to meet the regulations in relation to consent, the cleanliness of the premises, and notifying the Care Quality Commission (CQC) of significant incidents. We rated the service ‘inadequate’ in relation to whether the home was safe, responsive and well led. We rated it as ‘requires improvement’ in relation to being effective and caring. The overall rating for the service was ‘inadequate’ and we placed the home in special measures.
Following that inspection, the provider sent us an action plan, which stated the action they would take to meet the warning notices by 29 January 2016 and the other required improvements by 2 April 2016.
This comprehensive inspection took place on 26 and 30 August 2016. The first day was unannounced. There were six people living there when we visited. We found improvements had been made to meet all the relevant regulations.
There was a registered manager, who had registered with CQC since the last inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with CQC 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.
People received the care and support they needed from staff who understood their needs. Care plans were regularly reviewed, up to date and personalised to the individual. They contained thorough and clear instructions for staff. People’s individual risks were identified and assessed, and were managed through people’s care plans. Where necessary, health professionals were consulted for advice in devising care plans, for example, in relation to specific moving and handling or nutritional needs.
Where there was concern that people might not be able to give valid consent to aspects of their care, their mental capacity to do so was assessed. If people were found to lack mental capacity in relation to decisions about those areas of care, staff made best interests decisions on their behalf in consultation with their family members and health professionals.
People’s health was monitored and they were supported to see healthcare professionals when needed, including for dental and optical care.
People had access to meaningful activities at home and in the wider community. Staff regularly supported them to go out.
Peoples’ medicines were managed and administered safely. Medicines were stored securely and medicines records were complete. People had medicines when they needed them.
The premises and equipment were kept in good order. Equipment such as hoists and beds was inspected and serviced regularly. The house was visibly clean and a programme of redecoration was under way. People and their relatives had been consulted about this and their preferences had been heeded.
Accidents and incidents were recorded and were reviewed by the registered manager for action necessary to keep people safe. The provider monitored them for any trends that might suggest further changes in practice were necessary.
Staff understood their responsibilities in relation to protecting people from abuse. They were regularly reminded of these through staff meetings and supervision.
Staff morale had improved considerably since the last inspection. There were enough staff on duty to meet people’s care needs. Staff were well supported through training and supervision to be able to perform their roles safely and effectively. The staff we spoke with expressed confidence in the registered manager’s leadership.
Quality assurance systems were in operation to maintain and improve the quality of service provided. People and their relatives were consulted regarding their care and how the service was run. There was a programme of audits within the service and from the provider’s management team. Any shortcomings or areas for improvement were addressed.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection carried out on 19 and 20 October 2015. Anchor House provides care and support for up to seven people with physical and learning disabilities. This inspection was in response to concerns received about the home. There were seven people living in the home during our inspection.
At the time of this inspection the home did not have a registered manager. A registered manager is a 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. The previous manager left the employment of the home however had not deregistered with the CQC. Therefore they remain showing on this report. The home had a manager who was also the registered manager for a nearby home.
Although people’s needs were being assessed, care was not always delivered to meet people’s needs. The information in people’s care records was not always up to date and some people’s plans did not reflect their current needs. This meant people were at risk of receiving unsafe care.
Some mental capacity assessments had been undertaken resulting in best interest decisions being recorded. However some people had ‘best interest’ decisions in place without a mental capacity assessment. It was not evident in their care plan that the Mental Capacity Act 2005 had been appropriately followed.
People were not protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider did not have appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines safely. People’s medicine administration records were not always correctly completed. Pain assessments were not in place and medicine audits were not taking place. This placed people at risk.
People’s physical health was monitored and appropriate referrals to health professionals were made. The provider worked effectively with health professionals and made sure people received good support when they moved between different services.
Activities were provided both in and outside of the home.
Records showed that staff had received safeguarding training and understood their responsibilities in relation to protecting people from abuse.
Whilst there were enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs, feedback received from some staff was that the home was understaffed, which meant staff worked longer hours and shifts. Staffing levels had not been calculated based on people’s needs.
Staff were not receiving appropriate supervision in accordance with the provider’s supervision policy.
Robust systems were not in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service provided.
The provider had not ensured that the home was kept clean.
The provider was not ensuring that people were protected against the risks of inappropriate or unsafe care and treatment as effective analysis of accidents and incidents and audits had not been carried out.
We found multiple breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the report.
The overall rating for this service is ‘Inadequate’ and the service is therefore in 'Special measures'. The service will be kept under review and, if we have not taken immediate action to propose to cancel the provider’s registration of the service, will be inspected again within six months. The expectation is that providers found to have been providing inadequate care should have made significant improvements within this timeframe.
We met four of the people and the remaining three were out at day services or college. We spoke with five staff and the manager and observed staff supporting people in the communal areas.
Staff knew people very well, they knew each person's likes and dislikes and had good relationships with the people they cared for. They understood how people communicated and responded to people's non-verbal cues, vocalisations and gestures.
People experienced care and support that met their needs and protected their rights.
Medicines were managed, administered and stored safely.
People were cared for, or supported by, suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff who were recruited safely.
There were systems in place to monitor and assess the quality and safety of the service.
We found the service had care plans and risk assessments in place relating to each individual in the home. This ensured that people were receiving personalised care to meet their needs.
We found that people were protected from the risk of abuse because staff had received training and could demonstrate an understanding of their duties and responsibilities if they suspected abuse was happening.
We saw that people were well cared for by suitably qualified staff. We found that staff had undergone training and were given the opportunity to access further training to ensure they retained the skills to care for people in the home.
We found that the home had quality assurance systems in place to monitor the service provided to people in the home.