• Care Home
  • Care home

St Anne's Care Home

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

21-23 Wayside Road, Bournemouth, Dorset, BH6 3ES (01202) 425642

Provided and run by:
WCN Care Limited

Important: The provider of this service changed. See old profile

Assessment report published 17 February 2026

On this page

Safe

Good

11 February 2026

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

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

This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

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.

Learning culture

Score: 3

The service had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. They listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

People were supported by a staff who continually sought to share learning and improve.The management confirmed incident and accidents were recorded on the electronic care planning system. Where required, staff acted to make changes and prevent a recurrence.

Lessons learned were discussed and information was shared with staff through a digital messaging platform. This helped to ensure staff were kept up to date with people’s changing needs.

Relatives confirmed they felt comfortable raising any concerns with the management and staff.

Safe systems, pathways and transitions

Score: 3

The service worked with people to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored.

The service used an electronic care planning system. This meant people’s care plans and other relevant documentation was available in case of an emergency hospital admission.

At the time of this inspection, people were not receiving input from external professionals.

Safeguarding

Score: 3

The service worked with people to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. They concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect.

People and their relatives told us they felt safe with the staff who supported them.A person told us they felt safe and happy.

Staff completed safeguarding training and received regular updates. They felt confident raising concerns with the management team.

A staff member said, “We build positive relationships, listen to people, and make them feel safe and cared for.”

Involving people to manage risks

Score: 3

The service worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. They provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Risks to people were identified, assessed and control measures were described in people’s care plans. This enabled staff to take appropriate steps to minimise the risk of potential harm.Staff had access to all relevant information through the provider’s electronic care planning system.

The management team told us they kept in regular contact with relatives and staff members through the digital messaging platform.

Relatives confirmed they would speak with the service if people’s needs changed.

Safe environments

Score: 3

The service detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

Risks associated with a person’s home environment were identified during the preassessment process. Staff were informed about any hazards in people’s homes and took steps to manage them. The information was easily accessible, and staff teams were small, so people received support from regular staff who knew them well. Any changes to a person’s home environment would be communicated to staff through the digital messaging platform.

Safe and effective staffing

Score: 3

The service made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

The service had robust recruitment procedures. They included enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks for adults. DBS checks provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the police national computer. DBS checks provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the police national computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions.

Some gaps in training and competency assessments were identified during the inspection. The management responded to the feedback by ensuring the training and competency assessments were completed. The management had a clear plan to ensure staff remained up to date with their training.

Staff were organised and deployed effectively to provide safe and consistent care.

Staff received regular supervisions.

Infection prevention and control

Score: 3

The service assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

Measures were in place to protect people from the risks associated with the spread of infection. Staff received training in infection control as well as basic food hygiene and food safety. Staff had access to and collected personal protective equipment, such as gloves and aprons, from the office.

The service had an up-to-date infection control policy in place.

Medicines optimisation

Score: 3

The service made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences.

People received their medicines safely in line with the prescriber’s instructions.

If medicines were prescribed to be taken ‘when required’ there were detailed person-centred protocols in place to guide staff when these might be needed.

Staff had training and competency checks to support them with administering medicines safely. Any errors or incidents were investigated and reported, so systems could be put in place to prevent them recurring. Regular medicines audits took place which identified improvements that were needed, and actions were recorded.