You are here

Annacliffe Residential Home Good

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 3 July 2013
Date of Publication: 31 July 2013
Inspection Report published 31 July 2013 PDF

The service should have quality checking systems to manage risks and assure the health, welfare and safety of people who receive care (outcome 16)

Not met this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Benefit from safe quality care, treatment and support, due to effective decision making and the management of risks to their health, welfare and safety.

How this check was done

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 3 July 2013, observed how people were being cared for and checked how people were cared for at each stage of their treatment and care. We talked with people who use the service, talked with carers and / or family members, talked with staff and talked with commissioners of services.

We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

Our judgement

The provider did not have an effective system in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people who use the service and others.

Reasons for our judgement

The provider was only able to show us a limited number of internal quality audits. These included maintenance files that recorded what and when issues were raised and what actions were undertaken.

The Annacliffe had up-to-date gas and electric certificates. Fire safety checks were undertaken regularly and fire equipment appliance checks were current. Regular medication audits were performed, which monitored the administration of medicines and record-keeping. Regular team meetings enabled staff members to raise any concerns with the manager.

However, we were told that the home did not have a formal business plan. There were no environmental risk assessments in place. Health and safety checks and provider reports were not undertaken. Additionally, there was no recording of lessons learnt or actions undertaken following incidents and potential risks. This meant that people could be at risk if any environmental issues developed.

There were no other systems in place to monitor and assure the quality of service provision. For example, we were told that people’s views were formally sought by providing them with a survey. However, the home was unable to provide recorded evidence of this. This meant it was difficult to assess how the Annacliffe further monitor’s its quality of service provision.