Anchor House - Doncaster

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. At our last assessment we rated this key question Inadequate. At this assessment the rating has changed to Good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 67 (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 made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. People and their families were involved in discussions to ensure care plans reflected people’s personal preferences and care needs. The quality of care plans had improved since last inspection and a new system of care plan reviews had been put into place. The provider had recently moved to an electronic care planning and recording system and training and support was in place to maintain the improvement in care planning and recording of daily care notes. The new quality assurance processes to monitor and review the quality of care plans and to ensure care was delivered in line with people’s care needs needed to be embedded and sustained. People were involved in conversations about their care needs. One person told us, “I am alright, I have a [member of staff] who comes and we talk with people here about what I can do.”

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. Care was planned with people and their families. The provider had carried out a series of meetings and engagement sessions with people and their families to improve the quality and content of care plans and to ensure the care provided met people’s identified needs. We carried out observations over lunchtime and saw people were given choice about their meal options. People we spoke with reported improvements to the mealtime experience. One person said, “The food is alright, they have changed it, some of it I don’t like. We get fish and chips on a Friday. You get plenty to eat.” Another person told us, “It has improved, you get more choice. They are making Italian food now. They are making pasta bakes. You can have tuna pasta bake or chicken. I had a bit of both, it’s nice. They come around in the morning and ask what you would like, you have a choice of two. I don’t like the peppery stuff. I usually like what’s on offer. I can say if I don’t and they will offer me something else.”

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services. There were good communication systems in place for members of staff to share information and updates between shifts. The manager was new into post and was going through the CQC registration process to become the registered manager. The management team had developed new systems and processes and needed to ensure they were embedded into standard practice. We asked people if they felt the staff team knew how to provide the level of care they needed. People told us they felt their needs were being met. One person told us, “Yes, they keep my clothes clean and look after me. I am alright.” Another person said, ”Yes, they do what I need.”

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. The provider arranged for a specialised dental care provider to carry out ‘at home’ reviews of people’s oral health. People had access to optical and podiatric services and everyone who lived in the care home was registered with a local GP practice who provided weekly GP-led ward round visits. We saw evidence in care plans which confirmed community nurses had been involved in resolving issues around provision of appropriate equipment from the local community equipment service. We spoke to people about access to health and care services. One person told us, “[Members of staff] will call the doctor out if you are ill.” Another person said, “I had a rash on my leg, the doctor came out and gave me some more ointment. I ran out but I have enough now. I have had a dental inspection, the dentist came out, I am alright. The optician came out; I didn’t need any new glasses.”

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment. They ensured outcomes were positive and consistent and met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. Members of staff recorded care notes and observations on the electronic care planning system using handheld devices. The provider recognised the need for continued monitoring of the quality of care notes and to support staff to ensure all information was recorded accurately.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. People were asked about their consent to care and support and their decisions recorded. People’s capacity to make decisions was reviewed under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and where people lacked capacity, decisions were made in people’s best interests. We found the service was working within the principles of the MCA and if needed, appropriate legal authorisations were in place to deprive a person of their liberty.