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 the provider met people’s needs. At our last assessment we rated this key question Requires Improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to Good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 68 (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 were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. Members of staff knew people well and supported them to be involved in their own care. People's care plans reflected their needs and time had been spent talking to people and their families about their personal preferences including their likes and dislikes. Care and support had improved and was more person-centred care than observed at the previous inspection. A member of staff told us, “I provide person-centred care by respecting people’s values and putting people at the centre of care. I always take into account people’s preferences and expressed needs. This involves co-ordinating and integrating care with support from professionals such as GPs, social workers, dentists and community nurses. I enjoy involving people’s family and friends to make sure there is good communication and information. I also like making sure people are physically comfortable and safe and they are given emotional support.” The provider needed to ensure this approach to person-centre care was sustained and embedded into practice.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. People’s care was well coordinated. People were supported to access health and social care services and had access to the information they needed about these services. Members of staff worked well with other professionals involved in people’s care, sharing information effectively and following any guidance developed by professionals about how people should be supported.

The provider supplied accurate and up-to-date information in formats which were appropriate to individual needs. Information was available to people in the form of a policy. The provider confirmed a ‘user guide’ was being produced for people who were new to the care home. The ‘user guide’ will give people and their families all the information they needed to know about Anchor House Care Home. The ‘user guide’ needed to be completed and shared with people and their families. A family member told us about how members of staff communicated with their loved one who had communication challenges. They told us, “[Person] communicates through facial expressions and members of staff have learnt this already. I have spoken to social worker who has suggested picture cards so I will discuss this next time I visit.” People with visual impairments provided positive feedback about changes and improvements. They said, “The difference now is, if you ask [members of staff] to do something they will do it, which is much better. They understand me being blind to a point. I have radio in my room, sometimes I get sick of it and ask them to turn it off, they do this as I can’t. They do what you ask now, it’s much better.” The changes and improvements to how information is provided throughout the care home needed to be sustained and embedded.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. The provider had arranged group meetings with people and their families following the previous inspection and to discuss the outcomes and actions they had put in place, People’s families have been keen to be involved in developing care plans and have helped provide additional information about people to support the development of more person-centred care plans. Our discussions with the management team confirmed their focus on engaging with and involving people in their care. The management team wanted to listen to people and make improvements to care and outcomes for people. This approach needed to be sustained and embedded into practice. We spoke with people about how the provider responded to any concerns they had about care. One person told us about the how their concerns were resolved, “I had words with them as I like to leave my pyjamas out to air, because I sweat a bit in the night. [Members of staff] had moved them, I told them I liked them laid out and it was sorted. They are listening more now.”

The provider made sure people could access the care and support they needed at times when they needed. They were responsive to their needs and it was clear people and the quality of their care and support were the primary focus of the staff team, the management team and the provider.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. The provider had systems and processes which monitored people’s care and support needs, including health conditions. People’s care plans and records confirmed how people’s care and support was provided, monitored and reviewed. A relative of a person with a visual impairment told us, “I think [members of staff] look after [family member] well, they are alright here.” We observed a member of staff support the person to move into the lounge. They were encouraged to use their walking aid and the member of staff chatted with them and guided them appropriately until they reached a chair. The member of staff made sure the person was in a safe position to sit down.

People were 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 included information about their end-of-life care wishes and ReSPECT (Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment) forms were in place where people had completed them.