• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Anchorage Care Group

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Suite 3-4, Condover Mews, Condover, Shrewsbury, Shropshire, SY5 7BG (01743) 874874

Provided and run by:
Anchorage Care Group

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Anchorage Care Group on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.

This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.

If you have concerns about Anchorage Care Group, you can give feedback on this service.

20 May 2019

During a routine inspection

About the service: Anchorage Care Group is a domiciliary care agency. It was providing personal care to 70 people at the time of our inspection.

People’s experience of using this service:

People received a safe service from staff who were trained and supported well in their role. Staff arrived on time and provided support that met people’s needs and wishes.

Staff knew how to report any potential safeguarding concerns. They assisted people to take their medicines at the right time.

People were supported to have choice and control of their lives. Staff were caring and helped people to keep their independence. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity.

Care plans were in place that gave staff the information they needed to support people in line with their preferences.

People were encouraged to provide feedback on the service they received. The provider conducted regular checks and audits on the quality and safety of the service.

People and staff considered the management team were very supportive and approachable.

Rating at last inspection: Good (report published 4 October 2016).

Why we inspected: This was a scheduled inspection based on the service's previous rating.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received, we may inspect sooner.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

31 August 2016

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 31 August and 1 September 2016 and was announced.

Anchorage Care provides personal care for people in their own homes. At this inspection they were providing care and support for 78 people.

A registered manager was in post but owing to pre-arranged annual leave was not present at this inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. We were supported at this inspection by the care manager.

People were safe as staff had been trained and understood how to support people in a way that protected them from danger, harm and abuse. The provider completed appropriate checks on staff before they started work to ensure they were safe to work with people.

People were supported by enough staff to safely assist them. The provider had systems in place to provide additional support when people’s needs changed in order to continue to meet their needs. People received help with their medicines from staff who were trained to safely support them. The provider had systems in place to address any unsafe staff practice.

People received care from staff that had the skills and knowledge to meet their needs. Staff attended training that was relevant to the people they supported. Staff received support and guidance from a management team who they found approachable. People and staff felt able to express their views and felt their opinions mattered.

People had positive relationships with the staff members who supported them. People’s likes and dislikes were known by staff who supported them in a way which was personal to them. People were involved in decisions about their care and had information they needed in a way they understood. People had their rights protected by staff members who were aware of current guidance directing their practice.

People had their privacy and dignity respected and information personal to them was treated in confidence. People had access to healthcare when needed and staff responded to any changes in needs promptly and consistently. People were supported to maintain a diet which promoted their well-being.

The provider and registered manager undertook regular quality checks in order to drive improvements. The provider engaged people and their families and encouraged feedback. People felt confident they were listened to and their views were valued.

12 February 2014

During a routine inspection

People who used the service understood the care and support choices available to them, and were involved in decisions about their care. Comments included, "I am very happy with them" and, "They are all super. I find them very helpful". People told us that they received regular and reliable care from courteous and polite staff.

People told us that they were provided with appropriate information about the services on offer and that their care plan had been reviewed regularly.

Care planning arrangements were in place which included up to date care plans and risk assessments.

Suitable recruitment checks were completed to ensure people were cared for and supported by qualified, skilled and experienced staff.

We found that the provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service. This ensured that the service was effective and well led.

7 November 2012

During a routine inspection

We spoke with three people who used the service, two relatives and seven staff. People were 'very' satisfied with the care they or their relative received. They told us the agency provided a reliable and flexible service. One person told us, 'They are very good. With their help I've been able to stay in my own home, I couldn't do without them'.

People told us their care workers were respectful and caring. They said their privacy and dignity was maintained. Staff shared positive examples of how they provided people with choice and promoted their independence.

People said their needs were assessed and regularly reviewed with them. They told us they were involved in planning and reviewing their care. People considered care workers had a 'good' understanding of their or their relatives' individual needs and preferences.

People told us they felt safe in the presence of their care workers. One person commented, 'I feel safe with them, they are very good'. Staff had received training on protecting vulnerable adults.

People were complimentary about their care workers. Staff told us they enjoyed their work and said they were 'very' well supported. They said they had received training to keep people safe and to meet their individual needs.

People told us if they wanted to make a complaint they would telephone the office. One person told us they had raised an issue with the manager and it was dealt with straight away to their satisfaction.

18 January 2012

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out this review to monitor the continual improvements made by the agency since our last visit.

We had telephone discussions with eight people who received a service and two relatives to ask their views on the quality of the service that they received from the agency. We also spoke with eight staff and the registered manager and the business manager on the day of our visit to the office. We also reviewed care and staff files and looked at systems in place for monitoring contact with the people who received a service.

Everyone we spoke with told us that they were satisfied with the care and support that they received. People told us that they felt involved and consulted in relation to how they received their support. People said that staff knew how to meet their needs and listened to them when they asked for things to be done differently.

People told us that staff were flexible, caring and responsive. Everyone told us that they thought staff were well trained.

We identified an issue in relation to staff arriving late or changing times of calls and although people were very understanding of this, some people told us that it inconvenienced them and sometimes affected their plans. Staff told us that staff shortages within the agency had impacted upon the service delivery.The manager has already taken steps to address this issue and is now reviewing current arrangements.

We were told that the agency asked people if they were happy with the service received and everyone said that they would contact the office if they had any worries or concerns. People said that the managers were easy to talk to and listened to them.

We found that communication within the agency was a strength of the service provided. There was evidence within the care records seen that effective communication had protected vulnerable people. Staff also gave examples of how they worked effectively alongside health care professionals.

The agency had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided and the registered manager demonstrated that the agency had responded positively when issues had been identified. The manager said that the agency had just increased its 'score' for quality assurance and had just been reaccredited with the Investors In People Award.