Archived: Anchorage House

Updated 27 June 2017

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

We undertook an unannounced inspection of this service on 10 and 11 May 2017. The inspection was undertaken by one inspector, this was because the service was small and it was considered that additional inspection staff would be intrusive to people’s daily routine.

We spent some time talking with people in the service and staff; we looked at records as well as operational processes. We reviewed a range of records. This included two care plans and associated risk information and environmental risk information. We looked at recruitment information for five staff, including one who was more recently appointed; their training and supervision records in addition to the training record for the whole staff team. We viewed records of accidents/incidents, complaints information and records of some equipment, servicing information and maintenance records. We also viewed policies and procedures, medicine records and quality monitoring audits undertaken by the provider. We spoke with each person, three staff and the provider who manages the day to day running of the service.

Before the inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service. We considered information which had been shared with us by the local authority and healthcare professionals. We reviewed notifications of incidents and safeguarding documentation that the provider had sent us since our last inspection. A notification is information about important events which the home is required to tell us about by law. The provider had completed a Provider Information Return (PIR) before the inspection which we used to help us inform our Key Lines of Enquiry (KLOE) for inspection. The PIR is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and what improvements they plan to make.

Updated 27 June 2017

The inspection took place on 10 and 11 May 2017 and was unannounced. This service was last inspected on 26 and 27 May 2016 and found two regulations were not met and improvement was required in relation to the maintenance of the property and quality assurance checks. This inspection found the required improvement had been made.

Anchorage House provides accommodation and personal care for up to six people who have learning disabilities, some health conditions and some complex and challenging behavioural needs.

There were six people living at the service; we met and spoke with five of them. People told us they liked living at the service and received the care and support they needed. They were happy with their support arrangements; they liked the staff and told us staff were kind and caring. They thought the service was clean and tidy and provided a comfortable living environment.

Accommodation is arranged over three floors and each person had their own bedroom. Bath and shower facilities were shared.

The service did not require a registered manager as the provider manages this service and another owned locally by her. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (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. The provider was present during the inspection.

Staff followed correct and appropriate procedures in the storage and dispensing of medicines. People were supported in a safe environment and risks identified for people were managed in a way that enabled people to live as independent a life as possible. People were supported to maintain good health and attended appointments and check-ups. Health needs were kept under review and appropriate referrals were made when required.

A system to recruit new staff was in place. This was to make sure that the staff employed to support people were fit to do so. There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to make sure people were safe and received the care and support they needed.

Staff had completed induction training when they first started work at the service. Staff were supported during their induction, monitored and assessed to check that they had the right skills and knowledge to be able to care for, support and meet people’s needs. There were staff meetings, so staff could discuss any issues and share new ideas with their colleagues, to improve people’s care and lives.

People were protected from the risk of abuse. Staff had received safeguarding training. They were aware of how to recognise and report safeguarding concerns. Staff knew about the whistle blowing policy and were confident they could raise any concerns with the provider or outside agencies if needed.

Equipment and the premises received regular checks and servicing in order to ensure it was safe. The provider monitored incidents and accidents to make sure the care provided was safe. Emergency plans were in place so if an emergency happened, for example a fire, the staff knew what to do.

The Care Quality Commission is required by law to monitor the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. The provider and staff showed that they understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People had been assessed as lacking mental capacity to make complex decisions about their care and welfare. At the time of the inspection the provider had applied for DoLS authorisations for people who were at risk of having their liberty restricted to help keep them safe.

The care and support needs of each person were complex, and each person’s care plan was personal to them. People had detailed care plans, risk assessments and guidance in place to help staff to support them in an individual way.

Staff encouraged people to be involved and feel included in the running of the service. People were offered activities and participated in social activities when they chose to do so. Staff knew people and their support needs well.

Staff were caring, kind and respected people’s privacy and dignity. There were positive and caring interactions between the staff and people and people were comfortable and at ease with the staff.

People were encouraged to eat and drink enough and were offered choices around their meals and hydration needs. Staff understood people’s likes and dislikes and dietary requirements and promoted people to eat a healthy diet.

Quality assurance audits were carried out to identify any shortfalls within the service and how the service could improve. Action was taken to meet any improvements identified.

Staff told us that the service was well led and they felt supported by the provider. The provider had good management oversight and was able to assist us in all aspects of our inspection.