Anchor House - Doncaster

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.
At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person-centred care.
 

This service scored 43 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. Care and support was not person-centred. It was organised and arranged to suit the staff team and management of people. Some people's rooms were personalised but there was minimal interaction between staff and people. General use hair and washing products were kept in baskets in a cupboard under the sink in the kitchenette. This included shavers, hair dryers, hair tongs and washing products. A member of staff confirmed these products were provided by the home for general use for all people. We observed a member of staff putting a hairdryer away back in the cupboard under the sink after using it. We asked people about their care and support. One person told us, “[There is] nothing really. I have a radio in my room. I listen to Radio 1. I end up going to sleep. I have been out with one carer but we don’t get out a lot. I would like to get out more.”

There were shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity. Staff lacked the skills and leadership support to provide a good standard of care for people. People were not engaged in meaningful activities and there were limited opportunities for them to make informed choices.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats which were tailored to individual needs. People did not always have information in different formats. There was no information provided about meals and food choices. There was minimal engagement between care staff and people. Communication was task related rather than conversational, informative and engaging.

The provider did not make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result. There was limited evidence of engagement and involvement of people in discussions about their care and support. There was no evidence about regular meetings with people who lived in the care home and no evidence of meeting with people’s families where questions could be asked and information shared about developments and changes in the care home.

The provider did not always make sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Care and support was provided in a routine and transactional manner. People were sat for long periods in the lounge areas with limited engagement from care staff. It was unclear about how these people would be supported to be more involved in social activities.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this. People’s experience of care varied and people’s sensory and emotional needs were not always met. A person with sensory impairment told us, “[Care staff] don’t understand about being blind. [Care staff] don’t keep things in the same places and I never know what time it is. [Care staff] help me get dressed because if I bend down, I get dizzy.”

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. People’s care plans did not always include information about their end-of-life choices. We saw evidence ReSPECT (Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment) forms had been completed so people’s wishes were followed in relation to emergency care and treatment.