Anro House

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.
At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good.
This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.
 

This service scored 75 (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 had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.
The Registered Manager told us they aimed to support people to be the best that they could be. They gave multiple examples of how they had supported and increased people’s independence, so people were supported and enabled to live their lives as they chose to. They were very visible in the service and was a positive role model for staff. We observed that their office was open and the door remained open during our time there. They were knowledgeable and supportive of people and spoke passionately to help people and staff be the best they could be. They told us they promoted independence, enabled people to take positive risks, supported people’s preferences and encouraged people to enjoy their life.
Staff echoed the sentiments and values of the Registered Manager and spoke of the importance of working together and supporting the people they cared for in ways that suited them.
Staff were able to tell us when they had raised concerns confidently and directly to the Registered Manager and the actions that had been taken as a result.
 

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.
We found leaders were caring, experienced and capable and led staff who had the same values. Leaders were knowledgeable about the people cared for and knew what impacted on service delivery. Staff were happy to be open and honest when mistakes were made and felt supported by the managers. We saw leaders were visible and known to staff and people who lived at services. The Registered Manager was fully engaged with the service and showed passion and drive to get the best from staff to ensure people received support that was person centred and met their needs. There was an open-door policy to their office and staff we saw interacted with them in a positive way. We saw staff and people freely come and go from manager’s office which was located next to the communal area.
All staff told us if they wanted to raise anything with the Registered Manager, they felt confident that they would be listened to and action would be taken.
 

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt able to speak up and confident that their views would be listened to.
Staff told us the service had a policy in place and a dedicated phone number they could use if they felt unable to speak with a senior member of staff or the manager. They also said they trusted the Registered Manager and would feel comfortable speaking with them directly if they had any concerns. The service held a monthly staff meeting and staff felt able to speak directly to senior leaders and that they would listen. One staff member gave an example of where they had felt the need to raise a concern, which was dealt with quickly and decisive action had been taken to keep people safe.
 

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.
The provider held an annual staff survey which showed generally staff were happy working at the service. We saw evidence which highlighted where staff were dissatisfied with an aspect of their role the provider had taken direct action to improve. Staff told us they were happy working for the service, felt part of a team and that they could and had voiced opinions and they would be heard.
The provider’s recruitment process was fair and gave equal opportunities to those who applied for roles. Staff were involved in supporting the service, including taking responsibility for actions delegated from the consolidated action plan. This helped ensure compliance was maintained and contributed to improved safety for people living at the service.
Staff were happy to work at Anro House and people were supported according to their needs. Some staff were supported to develop in ways that suited them and at their pace and confidence levels. Shifts were flexible to support staff in ways that suited the business, such as a sleeping night shift (accompanied by a waking night) which reduced travel time for people who didn’t live locally but met the business need.
 

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes and shared this securely with others when appropriate. There was clear and effective governance, management and accountability arrangements.
Staff understood their roles and responsibilities. Managers were able to account for the actions, behaviours and performance of staff. Risk was managed proportionately and when issues had arisen, we saw documented actions that showed lessons were learned. There were robust systems in place that analysed data which were used to effectively monitor and improve the quality of care provided. Multiple audits were conducted across all levels with associated action plans delegated to staff to drive improvement. These audits covered such themes as restrictions, medication, care support, manager’s audit as well as an overarching provider audit followed up with an action plan.
The service maintained a live document which included the branches of ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ (RSRCRC) guidance. This was used to assess and demonstrate how the provider ensured people with a learning disability and autistic people were supported with respect, equality, dignity, choice, independence, and good access to their local community, including clear actions that were monitored and delegated to individuals.
However, we found there were some issues around PPE stock management. The provider has ensured that this concern had now been met.
 

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement. Staff and leaders were open and transparent and communicated with external stakeholders and agencies to ensure that peoples care was prioritised. These partnerships helped develop ways to achieve better outcomes for people. People were supported to be part of the community and part of their weekly activities were outings to the local town centre, pub and days out. People were encouraged to be involved in their community and had recently held a fund-raising event from baking for a cancer charity.

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contributed to safe, effective practice and research.
There were clear processes in place to ensure learning took place both when things went wrong and when good practice was identified. We saw examples of shared learning in team meetings, including in reminding staff of the importance of labelling medication when it had been opened. The manager had developed different strategies which had been shared across different services managed by the provider, such as drug of the month . Leaders promoted reflection and collective problem-solving and both staff and leaders demonstrated a good understanding of how to drive improvement. The approach was consistent and included measuring outcomes and impact through regular audits and effective oversight. The provider had recognised some innovations and had been shared with their other services locally.
Staff were supported to develop at the service and felt empowered to make suggestions for improvement or development opportunities.