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 good. At this assessment the rating has changed to inadequate. This meant there were widespread and significant shortfalls in people’s care, support and outcomes.

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

This service scored 38 (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’s care and treatment was effective because they did not check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. There was a restriction on new admissions into the care home and pre-admission assessments had to be sent to local social care professionals for review prior to allowing any new admissions. The management team had assessed 3 people for admission, but the admissions were refused. This showed assessments completed by the management team were not effective because they had not considered the impact the new admissions would have on the care home and other people who lived there or the ability of the service to meet the needs of the new people who would be living there.

The provider did not plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them. They did not follow legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. People were not supported to eat effectively. There was poor communication between members of staff which meant some people were at risk of not eating their main meal of the day. The CQC inspector had to intervene and direct a member of staff to engage with a person, who had not eaten their main meal, and offer them choice and alternative options. When the person chose an alternative, the member of staff did not communicate this to the cook, and the CQC inspector had to intervene again to ensure the person received their meal of choice. People’s modified diets were prepared as a single bowl of pureed food which did not look appealing or appetising. Menus were not displayed in the dining room, and the overall lunchtime experience was poor with limited positive experiences for people. We raised this issue with the provider and the management team, and they told us they would look at options to make improvements.

The provider did not work well across teams and services to support people. Members of staff did not work together effectively. There was a lack of awareness of people’s needs and choices at lunchtime and there were extensive periods of time when a member of staff was left single-handed in the care environment whilst the other member of staff was focussed on a task in another room. This ineffectiveness in team working was not identified or addressed by the provider or the management team.

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could not always maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff did not always support people to live healthier lives, or where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. People had access to healthcare professionals as required. People’s care plans stated health professionals such as district nurses, GPs, occupational therapists and speech and language therapists were involved in people’s care and support. However, it was not always clear their advice was understood and followed by all members of staff. For example, a member of staff who was supporting a person who was at risk of choking and on a specialised diet, was not aware of what to do if he choked or the reasons for their modified diet. The provider and the management team had not ensured members of staff were given time and support to read, review and understand people’s care plans.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure outcomes were positive and consistent, or met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. Outcomes for people were identified in their care plans; however, these outcomes were not always consistently met. For example, a person had a wish to have a walk in the garden area but there were not sufficient members of staff available to meet these desires and the outside environment was not appealing due to the build-up of waste materials and equipment.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment. People were not always involved in their care and members of staff carried out care and support as tasks without meaningful engagement. Where people lacked capacity, decisions made in their best interest were recorded in their care plan.