Anchor Point Neurological Centre-Inspire Neurocare (Southampton) Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 67 (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 made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People’s support and rehabilitation needs were assessed and reviewed regularly. Most people told us they were aware of their care plan and had been involved in it. The manager told us the service was about to implement multidisciplinary team meetings, so that all professionals involved in people’s care were present at reviews. People told us they knew about this and could attend these meetings if they chose to. People’s goals for rehabilitation were clearly documented.

Some people’s health conditions meant there was a risk of rapid clinical deterioration. In these instances, care plans provided information to staff on signs to monitor for and steps to take in the event of a clinical decline.

Staff told us they had access to people’s care plans and were informed of any changes to people’s needs. A staff member said, “We get told during handover and if someone has updated the care plan there would be a message in [electronic care planning system] to say it’s been updated, and to please read it before supporting them.”

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

The service used nationally recognised assessment tools to assess people’s risks and support needs. There was oversight of people’s weight and food and fluid intake. Daily checks of clinical equipment were in place to ensure it was working correctly. There were good links with internal and external health professionals.

People benefited from onsite physiotherapy and occupational therapy to support their rehabilitation.

Some people told us that they were not supported to do their rehabilitation stretches as often as they would like. A person said, “Stretches are not done and the carers with the physio qualifications are doing other things with other people. The staff are meant to be given training to do this with us, but it hasn’t happened.” We saw this issue had also been raised during a recent resident’s meeting, but at the time of the inspection, it had not been fully resolved.

Staff told us communication within the service had improved. A staff member said, “There’s improved communication now. Before, if I was off for 2 days and came back it was like I was new again, everything had changed. Now, everyone attends handover, we’re reminded of any new information, and the nurses keep us updated as well.” The introduction of daily meetings meant key information was shared across the wider staff team at the service.

Records showed staff referred people for additional specialist support and advice, such as speech and language therapists or the tissue viability nurse. People’s relatives told us the service kept them informed about any healthcare appointments and the outcome.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People’s healthcare needs were assessed and care plans in relation to these were informative. People and their relatives told us they were supported to access healthcare services, both at the service and other appointments. A person said, “The nurses can call the GP [if I am unwell] and every Tuesday the GP comes round.” A person’s relative told us their loved one had an upcoming hospital appointment which staff would take the person to.

People had enough to eat and drink. We received positive feedback about the quality and choice of food available. People and their relatives spoke highly of the chef. A person told us the chef was “very accommodating” of their dietary requirements and another person’s relative said, “As for the chef; he's amazing. The food is more than okay. It's 5 stars.”

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

People living at the service had their goals and aspirations recorded within their care plans. People’s progress was monitored and there was good oversight of this. A person said, "My physio has been a Godsend, and I have started to make progress and she is an angel. "Another person’s relative told us, “My [relative has improved since being there. That's down to the staff. The physio is employed by them, and [relative] is progressing. Hopefully it's onwards and upwards.”

Staff told us they enjoyed their role in supporting people to achieve their goals. A staff member said, “As it’s a rehab service we get to see new changes every day. Some residents are long term, but we can see changes in their mobility and that makes us happy. Being a part of their journey to go back to how things were for them is a good feeling.”

People had been assessed for their capacity to consent to aspects of their care. When people were assessed as lacking capacity, best interest decisions had been made, and records were in place to show who had been involved in the decision making and any less restrictive options that had been taken into consideration. However, not all records were an up-to-date reflection of people’s needs. For example, there were not always records in place to show if people had been asked for their consent to live at the service, or for the use of restrictions such as bed rails and lap belts. We fed this back to the management team who told us they would review all care plans and ensure up- to -date assessment records and consent forms were in place.

Staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). DoLS applications were submitted to the local authority in line with legal requirements.

People told us staff asked for their consent prior to supporting them and we observed this in practise. A person said, “Staff always seek consent. They always knock on my door even when I say they don’t need to.”