• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: St Anne's Nursing Home

60 Durham Road, London, N7 7DL

Provided and run by:
Anchor Hanover Group

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

20 February 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We spoke with people who used the service who spoke positively about the staff and the care and support they received. One person told us they had been a resident for a number of years and said they were happy living at the service. They told us that their personal care needs were met. Another person told us that staff came promptly day and night when they needed assistance.

We spoke with people's keyworkers who demonstrated that they had a good understanding of the needs of the people they care for.

Care plans were routinely reviewed and there was evidence that new care plans and risk assessments were introduced when a person's changing needs required new supporting documentation. Risk assessments were accurately completed including the assessment of risks to people's skin integrity, risks associated to the use of bedrails and the risk of falls.

When we last visited the service in July 2013, we found that people were at risk of unsafe or inappropriate care as the provider did not maintain accurate records in relation to the delivery of people's care and treatment. We told the provider the date by which we expected them to meet the requirements of the regulation. When we visited this time, we found that the provider was meeting this standard.

31 July 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

People who use the service and their relatives told us 'Things have improved', 'My Mum has been encouraged to get out of bed and do things', 'I feel listened to and make decisions about how to spend my day', 'Staff understand the help I need', 'I enjoy the food' and 'my family feel comfortable when they come to see me'.

We found that people experienced care and support that met their needs and protected their rights.

People who use the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening. There were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs, and people were cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care safely and to an appropriate standard.

The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received. However, the provider had not ensured that people who use the service were protected against the risks of receiving unsafe or inappropriate care or treatment by making sure that clear, accurate information was recorded in documents relating to them.

Where areas of non-compliance have been identified during inspection they are being followed up and we will report on any action when it is complete.

28 February and 6, 21 March 2013

During a routine inspection

We carried out a scheduled inspection of the service in September 2011 and carried out an additional responsive inspection in August 2012 when concerns regarding the service were brought to our attention. As a result of these inspections compliance actions were made, and during this scheduled inspection we checked on the progress made with these concerns.

People who use the service told us:

'The staff are okay, they will help you'

'The staff are very nice, they have hearts of gold'

'The staff are very respectful'

'You can choose what you want to eat, but I don't like the food'

'They cook what I want and I like the food here'

'I don't like it here'

'It is good here, but there are too many agency staff ' they don't always know what to do'

'I've been here for five years and it is fantastic'

We found that people's privacy, dignity and independence were respected and that people were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts to meet their needs. People who use the service, staff and visitors were protected against the risks of unsafe or unsuitable premises.

5 August 2012

During an inspection in response to concerns

We carried out this visit after concerns were raised with us about the home. Two inspectors visited the service on Sunday 5th August 2012 between 5pm and 8pm. During our visit we observed care being delivered on both the first floor, which had a mixture of people who were receiving residential care and those who required nursing care, and the second floor, which was solely for people who required nursing care. On the day of our visit there were 37 residents in total, with 18 on the first floor and 19 on the second floor.

We spoke with eight people using the service and with one visiting relative. They told us they felt the quality of the care and interaction they received from staff was very variable. People told us they often had to wait to receive personal care and they did not think there were enough members of staff to meet their needs. Some people commented that they felt that sometimes staff could be rough whilst supporting them with personal care.

None of the people we spoke with raised any concerns with us about the cleanliness of the home or how the home was managing their medications.

During our visit we observed that most people were in their bedrooms. There were very few people in the communal lounges. When we arrived there were six people in the lounges on the second floor and seven people in the lounges on the first floor. By 7.30 pm most people in the home were in their bedrooms, the majority had been supported to bed. When we observed staff interacting with residents we saw it tended to be short and task focussed in nature and that there was little general conversation between staff and residents.

16 September 2011

During a routine inspection

The people we spoke with were generally very positive about their experience of the home. They told us that they had flexible daily routines and chose when to join in activities. They also commented that there was a good choice of activities available. We found that some improvements were needed to promote peoples dignity and respect.

We found that each person had an individual plan that reflected their views and assessed any potential risks.

People who use the service spoke very positively about the meals provided, commenting on the quality of the food. In the main, we observed that support with eating was provided in an unobtrusive and sensitive manner. There were issues in this area in a smaller dining room that we have raised with the homes manager.

During our visit we observed that people who use the service appeared relaxed and comfortable in the company of staff. We found the premises to be clean, hygienic and well maintained. The home had recently been refurbished with some areas having been repainted and new carpets laid. A choice of communal spaces was available on each floor, and we found these to be comfortable and homely. Each person had their own bedroom with ensuite facilities. The homes Portable Appliance Testing (PAT) certificate had expired.

People who use the service spoke positively about the staff and the assistance they receive. People's needs were met by sufficient numbers of staff who were appropriately supervised. However, some staff had not completed refresher training in core areas.

The provider monitors the quality of service people receive, and takes account of their comments.