Anson Court

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating remained the same. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm. We assessed 4 quality statements in the safe key question. Some people who requested care from female staff had their personal care provided by male care workers. The provider took prompt action to address this concern. Staff knew how to safeguard people from the risk of harm. The home was clean and well maintained. Risks to people had been assessed and planned for. The new manager started late last year, and they had increased staffing levels at the home. Staff told us this had a positive impact on the care people received.

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.

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

People and their relatives told us they felt safe. Staff understood how to protect people from the risk of abuse. A staff member told us, "If I have a concern, I report it to the senior or speak to someone on duty and I record the incident and I take a photo and I record in real time". The provider maintained clear records of all safeguarding concerns and their responses. We could see concerns were raised in a timely way and were investigated in line with the provider’s policy. The provider had applied for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisations for people when they lacked the mental capacity to consent to their care and treatment. There were systems to monitor these and any conditions to ensure they were relevant, and people’s rights were not being unfairly restricted.

People who used the service were protected from the risk of avoidable harm. Risks to people's safety and wellbeing had been assessed, managed and mitigated. Risk assessments were reviewed and updated when people's needs changed.

There had been an increase in the number of falls at the home over the last quarter. The provider had worked with partner agencies including health professionals to review people’s care needs. The provider had introduced a “Multifactorial Falls Risk Screening Tool” which allowed for the identification of risk factors that placed people at high risks of falls and this was used to direct people to the most appropriate support. When a person had a fall, the provider put in place a 24-hour post fall observation log. This was to monitor and understand any effects from the fall and take appropriate action if necessary.

People’s weights were regularly checked and If people were at risk of malnutrition, we saw people's weights were regularly recorded so staff could identify any loss or gain which may require the input of a healthcare professional. We saw evidence that appropriate action was taken when concerns arose.

The home was clean and well maintained and free from malodours. The manager carried out monthly health and safety audits and actions were completed. There was a maintenance schedule, and we saw work was being undertaken across the home as some areas needed refurbishment. People and their relatives told us they had no concerns regarding the home environment.

People’s physical and health needs were met; however, they did not always receive their preferred carer when staff were providing personal care. Some people had requested to have their care provided by female staff, we noted that in some cases this did not happen, particularly at night. Staff also confirmed this, a staff member told us “We try to support gender preference where possible this does not always happen." Following our site visit the provider took prompt action to revisit people’s care plans and the manager confirmed people would be cared for in line with their personal preferences. There was mixed feedback from staff regarding staffing levels. The manager confirmed they used a staffing dependency tool to assess staffing requirements based on the needs of the people living at the home. The new manager had started in October of last year and they assessed staffing levels, and they had increased staffing levels in the home.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.