Anchor House - Doncaster

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to inadequate. This meant there were widespread and significant shortfalls in leadership. Leaders and the culture they created did not ensure the delivery of high-quality care.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to governance at the service.
 

This service scored 32 (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 have a shared vision, strategy and culture based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, and engagement. They did not understand the challenges and the needs of people and their communities. The provider had not shared a clear vision of how the service was to be managed and led. There was not a set of values and systems for staff to work towards which ensured all staff worked in a person-centred way. People and staff were not involved in decision making, implementing systems or included in improving the service. This meant people received care which was provided by staff who were focussed on time and tasks.

The provider did not have inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support, or who embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders did not have the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively and understand what good care looks like. A clear system was not in place to ensure people received person-centred care which met their physical, social and emotional needs. Recent changes to leadership and management had not led to positive impact on the quality of care and improvement in outcomes for people. There was a lack of management oversight and lack of systems and processes to ensure provision of good quality care and support for people.

People did not always feel they could speak up and that their voice would be heard. People had gone to outside organisations, including CQC, to report concerns because they did not feel able to speak up internally. When people had spoken up, they told their concerns were not listened to by the provider.

The provider did not always value diversity in their workforce. They did not always work towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them. Members of the staff team did not feel supported by the provider. The provider had not supported the development of a wholly inclusive workforce.

The provider did not have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They did not act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate. We were not assured clear governance systems and processes were in place which supported good management oversight and quality assurance of good care and support. Governance systems failed to assess, manage or mitigate risks relating to water, medication and infection prevention and control. This put people at risk of harm. There were inadequate systems and audits in place to assess, monitor and improve the quality and care provided. Care staff did not have enough information to know how to provide safe care which met people’s needs. For example, people’s care plans and risk assessments did not include all of people’s current information and some people were not receiving person-centred care which met their needs and in line with their care plan.

The provider did not understand their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services work seamlessly for people. They did not share information and learning with partners or collaborate for improvement. The provider had not shared appropriate information with the local safeguarding adults team and had ignored multiple requests to share information and make the appropriate referrals in line with local safeguarding processes. There was no evidence of collaboration or working in partnership with local organisations or communities to improve outcomes for people or to improve the quality of care and support.

The provider did not focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They did not encourage creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They did not actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research. There was not a system or process in place to learn from accidents, incidents, safeguarding referrals or feedback from local health and care organisations. We did not see any creative approaches to delivering care for people or for engaging them in designing their own care to make it person-centred and outcome-focussed. This meant people continued to receive care which was routine and transactional rather than creative, innovative and supportive.