Archived: Anville Court Care Home

Updated 21 May 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 1 March 2016 and was unannounced.

The inspection team included two inspectors, a pharmacist inspector, a specialist advisor who was a nurse with specialism in wound and pressure care management and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who use this type of service. As part of the inspection we looked at the information we held about the service. This included statutory notifications, which are notifications the provider must send us to inform us of certain events. We also contacted the local authority and the clinical commissioning group (CCG) for information they held about the service. This helped us to plan the inspection.

During the inspection we carried out observations of the care and support people received. We spoke with 10 people who lived at the home, six relatives, five staff members and the registered manager. We looked at six records about people’s care and support, 12 medicine administration records and quality assurance audits which were completed by the managements and senior staff.

Updated 21 May 2016

This inspection was unannounced and took place on 1 March 2016. At the last inspection in July 2015, we found the provider was not meeting the regulations. We asked them to make improvements regarding providing person centred care, obtaining consent to care, providing care to people safely, safe management of medicines, protecting people from abuse, meeting people’s nutritional and hydration needs, receiving and acting on complaints, monitoring the care provided to people and the deployment of staff. The provider had submitted an action plan detailing the improvements they planned to make and at this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was now meeting the regulations.

Following the last inspection the service was rated as inadequate and placed in to special measures. At this inspection the service had demonstrated improvements and is no longer rated as inadequate in any of the five key questions, therefore it is no longer in special measures.

Anville Court is registered to provide accommodation with nursing and personal care for up to 50 older people including people with dementia and people with disabilities. On the day of the inspection there were 27 people living at the home. There was a registered manager in post. 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.

We found that medicines were not always prepared and administered in accordance with the manufacturer’s guidelines. People told us they felt safe and we found they were supported by staff who knew how to protect people from harm. People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff who were available to respond when people needed them. Risks to people’s safety had been assessed and care and support was delivered in a way that kept people safe from harm.

People were asked for their consent before care and support was provided by staff. People’s capacity had been assessed and recorded so that staff knew how to support people when making choices and decisions. People were happy with the food and drink provided and there were systems in place to ensure people received adequate nutrition and hydration. People were supported by staff who felt they had received training to equip them to do their job. People had access to healthcare when they required it and people’s health needs were monitored by staff and any changes were identified and reported.

People told us staff were caring and everyone we spoke to told us their care was good. Staff knew people’s personal histories and understood their needs and preferences. People told us they were involved in decisions about their care. People were supported by staff in a way that maintained their dignity and protected their privacy.

People and their relatives told us they were involved in their care planning. People knew how to complain if they were unhappy about the care they received and were confident the provider would listen to their concerns and take appropriate action. People took part in activities that interested them and a resident’s committee had been established to represent the views of people living at the service.

Systems in place to monitor the care provided were effective and identified areas where improvements needed to be made. People, relatives and staff expressed their confidence in the registered manager. People and staff felt able to contribute to the development of the service and the registered manager demonstrated the skills and knowledge required for their role.