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 good. At this assessment the rating has changed to inadequate. This meant services were not planned or delivered in ways which met people’s needs.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person-centred care 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 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. People were not at the heart of care and support provided at Anchor House – Doncaster. Care was not always person-centred and did not meet people’s identified needs. Members of staff were task orientated and the task became their key priority over delivering person-centred care and support to people.

There were significant shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity. Care was not person-centred and we saw little evidence to support continuity of care for people. Communication between members of staff was poor with 1 member of staff left to care for 11 people in the lounge whilst another member of staff was in another room by themselves. People's care plans contained detailed information about their care, but it was not delivered in line with people's choices and preferences. For example, 1 person cared for in bed wanted regular 1-1 support and engagement, however this could not be provided because there were insufficient members of staff and poor communication between them and the management team.

The provider did not supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats tailored to individual needs. There was limited information available for people displayed in and around the care environment. Information about menus, activities and choices for people was limited. Members of staff were task-focused and unable to provide a personalised approach to communication, engagement and the provision of information.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Members of staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result. We saw evidence of a recent engagement meeting with people who lived in the care home which had been arranged by the new management team. There had also been a recent full staff team meeting. There were limited assurances engagement meetings for people and members of staff took place regularly with outcomes recorded and actions implemented to make changes. The provider’s complaints policy and process was displayed in the main entrance to the service. The new management team had not received any complaints but there was an incomplete history of complaints because previous records and information could not be sourced. Feedback from a recent survey with people who lived in the care home indicated only 3 people were happy with activities provided. Meetings with families had been advertised but were not well attended. The organisational culture did not support active engagement with people and listening to feedback from family members.

The provider did not make sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. We did not observe people being engaged in activities by members of staff. People did not have easy access to outside space and there were no links with the local community and community groups. People were not supported to access and engage with their local community and there were no plans in place to support community groups and services to access the care home to engage with people.

Leaders and members of staff did not listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not tailored in response to this. Some people were living with dementia and there was a lack of clear signage throughout the care environment to support people to navigate around their home. Members of staff and leaders did not always show a genuine interest in people and their views. People were not involved in making a difference and improvements to the care home. People’s care plans documented their outcomes, but it was not clear if people had been involved in achieving them. In some cases, outcomes in people’s care plans were not delivered. For example, people who expressed a wish to be supported to use the garden but could not do so because there were insufficient members of staff, and the garden was being used as a storage area and was not safe due to the build-up of waste. People were, therefore, not able to live the life they chose.

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 included information about their end-of-life care wishes. Where people had requested meaningful social engagement, we did not see evidence of this happening on the day of inspection and the limited number of staff on duty would make this difficult to achieve for people.