Anro House

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

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service 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. People’s care plans comprehensively reflected their physical, mental, emotional and social needs, including those linked to protected characteristics under the Equality Act.
Staff supported individuals in ways that respected their preferences, while promoting independence with kindness and compassion.

We observed that people appeared happy, comfortable and at ease with staff, who engaged positively and seemed to enjoy their interactions. The service demonstrated several examples of individuals making personal achievements since moving in. For instance, one person was supported to transition into a supported living environment. People had been supported with increased independence around their specific health and communication needs, which had enhanced their lives. Additionally, people had gained important life skills such as changing bedclothes, doing laundry and preparing snacks independently.
 

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. The service supported different people in different ways that were right for them.
People were encouraged into the community and to be part of it. Care was delivered, tailored and co-ordinated to individuals. We saw that people had regular appointments with healthcare providers, opticians, dentists etc. when required and staff actively sought out support when people needed it. For instance, one person had an undocumented, unmet health need which impacted on their comfort and daily life. The service held a best interests meeting which resulted in a medical intervention that has increased the independence of that person and contributed to their wellbeing.
 

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.
People were not always communicated with in ways that they could understand.

The provider created a regular newsletter in an easy read format that was displayed in the communal area of the home and this was also sent to people’s families.
Activities were individually planned with people through their keyworker who used key picture cards or spoke to people and individual activity timetables were displayed in the lounge. However, weekly menus and activities were not in easy read or a format that someone who could not read would understand.
The kitchen displayed a weekly sheet that showed the daily menu as well as an image display that showed the meal options available that day. However, the board only showed one image and this did not change over the two days that we inspected the service. In response the service planned to display a visual menu of food and activities for people in communal areas
Some people’s relatives said they were unable to access care plans which were now on an electronic system, whilst others said they were able to access them. However, all relatives said they were involved in best interest decisions and have updates on what people are doing.
 

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 held an annual survey for families of people that are supported which reflected positively on how people were cared for.
People were supported to provide feedback using various tools such as images, written forms, Makaton (a form of sign language) and electronic devices. People and their families were consulted about their care and their care plans supported their wishes. The service held a complaints file, however, there were no complaints that had been made to the service to review.
A relative told us “They ask me every time I go in if there’s anything you’d like us to do or want us to do, they’re very accommodating, I can’t fault them. All the other residents seem very happy, they talk to me and they’re relaxed. You see them coming back from being out with staff, they’re happy”.
Staff told us the service held regular staff meetings where the Registered Manager provided guidance and shared relevant information. Staff were also able to contribute to discussions and share ideas to improve care and support.
One staff member gave an example of how feedback from the team led to a positive change in practice. They explained that one person did not like having their hair washed, so staff developed an approach that reduced the person’s stress and anxiety. This was then incorporated into the person’s care plan to ensure consistent support from all staff.
 

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.
We spoke to leaders who told us they had reviewed communal room usage and as a result were in the process of increasing the size and creating a dining/living area.
People’s care, treatment and support was accessible, timely and in line with best practice, quality standards and legal requirements. People had access to health and social care and were supported to engage in community activity, such as taking part in the weekly shopping trip for the service, outings and visits to local shops. The Registered Manager told us families and people who cared for people were welcome to visit at any time.
 

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. We saw that people were treated as individuals and supported in ways that encouraged independence and learning.
The Registered Manager told us people were supported to learn and develop and gave examples of previous and current people who had lived at Anro House. One person had developed their speaking skills and has become less dependent on staff in certain areas of personal care since joining the service. The person had been supported to use a tablet and were in the process of obtaining an app to support and expand their speech development. The Registered Manager explained the service promoted a positive approach to risk taking, such as supporting people to use knives with hand over hand staff support enabling people to live as independently as possible.
 

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future. Where people’s future care preferences focused on greater independence and fewer care interventions, staff supported them to work towards these goals. The Registered Manager told us that no one was currently receiving end of life care; however, they would expect to support people at the service should this be required.
Leaders had identified that end of life preferences were not consistently recorded in care plans and had taken action to address this gap with people where possible and their families.