Updated 30 April 2019
The inspection: We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
Inspection team: The inspection team consisted of one inspector.
Service and service type: Anvil House is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.
There was a registered manager in post at the time of our visit however they were not at work on the day we visited. 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.
Notice of inspection: This inspection was unannounced.
What we did: Before the inspection we reviewed the information, we held about the service and the service provider. The registered provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is information that we request that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and any further developments they plan to make. We looked at the notifications we had received for this service. Notifications are information about important events the service is required to send us by law.
During the inspection, we met six of the people who lived at the service, however due to most people having complex non-verbal communication we were unable to obtain verbal feedback from everybody. We observed how people were being cared for and supported. We also met and spoke with four support staff, two senior support staff, the administrator, the deputy manager and the locality manager for the provider. We spoke to three people’s relatives to obtain their feedback.
We looked at records used by the provider for managing the service. These included the online support plans and records for people, staff training and support records, records of quality monitoring and audits, information about medicines and we inspected the environment.