Archived: Anchor House

• Is the service caring?

• Is the service responsive?

• Is the service safe?

• Is the service effective?

• Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people who used the service, speaking to staff who supported people who used the service and from looking at records.

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

Is the service caring?

People’s preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people’s wishes. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of the needs of the people who used the service and could describe how to maintain people’s dignity and how to ensure people’s choices were respected.

Risk assessments were completed which ensured staff knew how to keep people safe. People had been involved with the formulation of their care plans and where needed, people had been supported to make informed decisions. Health care professionals, for example doctors, community psychiatric nurses, speech therapists, occupational therapists and psychologists, had been consulted and their advice sought when people needed specialist care and attention.

Is the service responsive?

The service had a complaints procedure which people could access. People were therefore assured that complaints were investigated and action would be taken as necessary. The provider consulted with people about how the service should be run and any issues were addressed. People were consulted about their care needs.

Staff followed instructions from visiting health care professionals, for example doctors and community psychiatric nurses. This ensured people received the care and attention they required to meet their needs.

Is the service safe?

The service was safe, clean and hygienic. Equipment was well maintained and serviced regularly, therefore not putting people at unnecessary risk.

The manager set the staff rotas, they took people’s care needs into account when making decisions about the numbers, qualifications, skills and experience required. This helped to ensure people’s needs were met. Before staff were recruited the provider undertook employment checks. This ensured people who used the service were not exposed to staff that were barred from caring for vulnerable people.

The provider had policies and procedures in place for staff to follow to report any abuse they may witness or become aware of. Staff also received training about how to keep people safe.

Is the service effective?

People’s health and care needs were assessed with them and they were involved in writing their plans of care. Plans were in place for staff to follow to support people who may be a risk to themselves and others. Health care professionals were consulted if required.

People’s care plans detailed the person’s preferences and their method of communication. This enabled the staff to identify when the person was not happy or felt uncomfortable with any given situation.

Is the service well led?

The provider consulted with people about how the service was run and took account of their views. Relevant persons who had an interest in the care and attention people received had also been consulted and their opinions taken into account about how the service was run. Staff received training which equipped them to meet the needs of the people who used the service. The provider also gave staff the opportunity to gain further qualifications.

What people who used the service and those that matter to them said about the care and support they received.

People we spoke with were positive about the care and service provided. They told us they felt safe and trusted the staff to support them. They also told us they were involved with reviews and with formulating their care plans. Comments included, “The staff are excellent”, “The food is excellent” and “The home is fantastic, I’ve really settled and they support me really well.” One person told us, “I’m not judged here.”

People spoke about the recent announcement regarding the home closure. They were concerned about this but told us the staff had supported them and spoke to them individually and discussed future options.

People who used the service told us they liked living at Anchor House and were supported with their everyday needs. They also told us that choice and independence was promoted. Comments included, "I like to get up early and go out around 6 am, the staff do me a pack up”, "I like living here" and "I go out with my key worker to the shops or for a coffee."

We observed choice being offered at lunchtime and people told us that individual activities took place.

People who used the service also said they were happy with the level of care and support they received and felt safe within the home. Comments included, "I see my doctor when I need to", "They (the staff) are alright" and "I have seen my care plan and was able to discuss this with staff."

Our inspection of 7 January 2013 found the environment to be dirty, unhygienic and in need of refurbishment or renewal. During this visit we could see there had been improvements to the cleanliness of the building, the communal areas had been redecorated and there wasn't a smell of smoke everywhere.

People told us they knew how to make a complaint and that their views were listened to.

People also told us they had a choice of menu and the standard was acceptable. They commented, "The food is fine", "It's adequate" and "I think the food is very nice."

We spoke with several people who used the service who told us they were able to access the health care and social support they needed. They also commented that staff were, "First class", "The staff are good" and "They are perfect". However, one person did state, "Staff do not treat us with respect."

People told us the environment was adequate to meet their needs. However, during a tour of the building we saw that in some areas the standard of cleanliness was poor and there was a risk of cross infection.

People told us they knew how to make a complaint and that their views were listened to. Some comments included; "I would speak to the manager or one of the staff" and "When I have had problems before they have been sorted."