Archived: The Anchorage

This inspection took place on 20 and 29 June 2016 and was unannounced. The Anchorage is a service for up to six people who have a learning disability.

There was a registered manager in place. 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. We also met with the providers HR manager during this visit. They were planning to apply to take over the registration of the service in the future.

The provider has another service, Daybreak Support Services, which is situated less than a mile away from The Anchorage. Daybreak Support Services is also the provider’s main office. We visited the office as part of our inspection of The Anchorage. The two services have a number of staff who work across both of them. Records for both services are also held at the Daybreak Support Services offices.

The provider had a robust recruitment procedure in place. People were supported by staff who had only been employed after the provider had carried out checks. Staff were aware of their responsibilities to report any concerns and knew how to report this within the provider organisation. However not all staff were aware of who they could contact externally of the provider if they thought that someone had been harmed in any way.

People were supported by staff who had received an induction into the service and appropriate training, professional development and supervision to enable them to meet people's individual needs. There were enough staff to meet people's needs and to enable them to engage with people in a relaxed and unhurried manner.

Medicines were stored safely and only administered by staff that were appropriately trained. Medicine administration records were up to date with no gaps in recording. This demonstrated people were receiving their medicines in line with their doctors' instructions. Healthcare professionals such as chiropodists, opticians, GPs and dentists were involved in people's care when necessary.

The Care Quality Commission is required to monitor the operations of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care services. The principles of the MCA had not always been followed when decisions had been made on behalf of people who could not make them for themselves.

People were encouraged to take part in activities. Some people were out and others were taking part in activities at home. Relatives were complimentary about the service and were made to feel welcome and could visit whenever they liked. There was information available if people or their relatives wanted complain.

People were supported to maintain a healthy balanced diet. Dietary and nutritional specialists' advice was sought so that people with complex support needs with their eating and drinking were supported effectively.

The management team assessed and monitored the quality of the service through audits that were undertaken. However, the system had failed to identify the issues associated the health and safety of the building. The system had also failed to identify that there were a number of risk assessments out of date.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service, relatives and staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.

If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

This is a summary of what we found:

Is the service safe?

Risk assessments for care needs were completed and provided appropriate actions for the identified risk to be reduced. People told us that they felt safe living at the home. There had been an improvement since our previous inspection in the way records that showed how people were cared for were kept.

There was a clear system for reporting abuse, which staff members knew well and had received training to enable them to identify and report abuse. However, applications had not been appropriately made in regard to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards for one person whose liberty was restricted. Staff members and the manager did not show they had appropriate knowledge regarding new guidance.

Is the service effective?

People told us that staff members obtained their consent before supporting them with care or treatment. Care records showed that people were able to make decisions for themselves.

People told us that staff members helped them with everything they needed assistance with. They told us that they were satisfied with the care they received. Care records provided information about people's care needs and preferences.

Health needs were responded to and people had access to health care professionals if they needed this. Care records contained information about the health care professionals involved with people's care.

Is the service caring?

People said that staff members were polite and kind and involved them in their care. We observed interactions between people and staff members and we found that the members of staff were patient and understanding of people's individual needs. Staff members knew people's care needs and their personal preferences when we spoke with them.

Is the service responsive?

We saw that people's individual physical and mental support, care and treatment needs were assessed and planned for. Their individual choices and preferences regarding their support and care were valued and respected.

Is the service well led?

There had been an annual survey to gather the views of people using the service just prior to our inspection, which showed that people liked living at the home and had no complaints. There were other systems in place to monitor and assess the quality of the service provided; analysis showed there had been no trends or themes identified from complaints or other records.

We spoke with four people who were using the service. They spoke positively about the staff and about the support which they received. They told us that they were involved in many activities and outings. One person who communicated in a non-verbal way showed that they were happy living at The Anchorage. One person said, " I like it here. I like everybody here.'

People who used the service told us that they liked the meals and the food was good.We spoke with two members of staff who told us how they supported people with their nutritional needs and this was evidenced in the support plans.

The people we spoke with told us that they felt safe and the staff who we spoke with showed us that they understood how to protect people from abuse.

We observed that there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs.

The provider had a clear complaints procedure in place and we saw that this procedure had been followed. People who used the service knew how to make a complaint and were supported by staff, if required.

We looked at support plans and risk assessments for four people who were using the service. We saw that were not protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care because accurate and appropriate records had not been maintained.

People received the care and support they required to improve their health and well-being. Care records were written in detail and provided clear guidance to staff members. People we spoke with said staff always supported them with their care needs.

Medicines were stored appropriately although records were not kept to show all storage areas were at the correct temperature. Administration records were kept and people received their medicines in a safe way.

Required checks were completed prior to new staff members starting work with vulnerable people.

There were systems in place to regularly check and monitor the way the service was run.