Archived: The Anchorage

Updated 10 September 2016

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.

This inspection took place on 20 and 29 June 2016 and was unannounced. The inspection was completed by one inspector. After the visit, we required some further information. This was in relation to a health and safety issue. This information was received within the specified timeframe.

Before the inspection, we asked the provider to complete a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. Due to technical problems, a PIR was not available and we took this into account when we inspected the service and made the judgements in this report.

Before we carried out this inspection, we also reviewed the information we held about this service including notifications. A notification is information about events that the registered persons are required, by law, to tell us about. We also made contact with the local authority quality assurance team to ask their views on the quality of the service.

Most people who used the service were unable to tell us verbally about their experience of care. However, staff who knew people well were able to assist some people to communicate their views in other ways. We made observations of people’s experience of care and how staff interacted with people. This enabled us to better understand people’s experience of the support they received. We also spoke with one person’s relative.

We spoke with three care staff, the team leader, registered manager and HR manager. During the inspection, we looked at two people’s care plans as well as records in relation to the management of the service. This included staff recruitment records, staff supervisions, complaints and quality assurance records.

Updated 10 September 2016

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.