Anchor Point Neurological Centre-Inspire Neurocare (Southampton) Limited

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.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated 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.

Most care plans were detailed and described people’s choices and preferences, particularly in relation to people’s preferred routines and their preference for male or female staff support. A person told us, “The staff team are very caring and show me kindness and respect. My preferences are listened to.” Another person’s relative said, “They know [name] well. They know all [name’s] likes and dislikes, and they have a good laugh together.”

Most people told us they felt staff understood their personal goals and were supportive in helping people to meet them. However, some people told us they felt staff did not always listen or provide support in the way they preferred. We discussed this with the manager who told us about planned improvements. This included for example, more permanent staff to promote continuity of care, and better communication with the wider multidisciplinary team to ensure people's goals were met.

People’s life stories were not always easy to locate in care plans. Because people had multiple needs, and because the service was using some agency staff, not having easily accessible information for staff on what led to people living at the service meant there was a risk staff would not be able to consistently provide person centred care. Despite this, staff we spoke with knew people well and knew people’s choices and preferences for how they liked to be supported.

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.

People told us they wanted continuity of care, from a team of permanent staff and some people didn’t always feel agency staff fully understood their needs. The manager told us the service was still reliant on agency staff although recruitment was underway.

The service worked closely with people and healthcare partners to maintain continuity of care, including when people moved between different services. People told us they had access to health care professionals when required. The service was visited weekly by a local GP, and staff told us how they could seek professional advice and support between those visits. A person told us, “The nurses have a great knowledge. I see the GP every week and they are responsive to any issues I have. I currently have infection and this was dealt with quickly.”

There was an in-house neuropsychologist who provided additional support for people and staff.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People’s communication needs were assessed. When people had specific communication needs, this was written in care plans and included the use of any communication aids. We saw staff communicating with people using their preferred method calmly and respectfully, and people were not rushed.

There was clear signage throughout the building which supported people to find their way around safely and independently.

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.

Regular meetings with people were held. Meeting minutes showed good attendance, and a ‘you said, we did’ board showed feedback was acted on. For example, people had asked for more information about staff on duty, and there was now a short biography of each staff member in the reception area for people to read. There were posters in communal areas informing people and visitors how to raise a concern or complaint, and QR codes for people to scan to give feedback.

Feedback was sought from people about meals. The chef told us “We have a lot of conversations with people; we are quite close with the residents. We do like to chat with them as well to see how they feel and what they like to eat.”

Complaints were logged, investigated and responded to. The provider adhered to their duty of candour responsibilities. People and their relatives told us they knew how to raise concerns. A person said, “I have no concerns at the moment, and there have been no concerns in the past, but I would be happy to talk to staff about any issues.” Overall people told us they felt listened to.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People’s needs were assessed before they moved to the service. When people’s needs changed, records showed staff referred people for specialist support and advice.

The environment was accessible, with large bedrooms, wide doorways and corridors fitted with handrails and adapted toilets and bathrooms. All areas within the service and the garden were wheelchair accessible.

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.

Staff received training in equity, diversity and human rights to help them understand equality and address discrimination. Care plans included information about what was important to people, such as family relationships, social interests, and cultural or spiritual needs. Staff used this information to provide care that was fair and personalised and people told us this happened in practise. People told us staff supported them to have any spiritual needs met.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

In the main, advanced care plans were in place and informed staff of people’s choices about how they wanted to be cared for at the end of their lives. This included information around people’s spiritual choices.