CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Anahita Recovery Centre
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, April 2019
Anahita Recovery Centre was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-organised care across all five areas.
Inspectors visited on 19 March 2019. One inspector reviewed information about the home, spoke with three people, managers and staff, and examined care, medicine, recruitment, training and quality records.
The home supported up to 24 people with mental health needs, and 22 people were living there at the time. People told inspectors they felt safe and were treated with respect. Inspectors found suitable staffing, risk assessments, medicine arrangements, care planning and training.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The report says legal requirements were met. This was the same overall rating as the previous inspection, published in October 2016.
Safe medicines support
Medicines were securely stored, records had no gaps and staff administering medicines had been trained and assessed as competent.
“Medicines were securely stored and managed safely. People were receiving their medicines as prescribed by health care professionals.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People described staff as caring and respectful. Staff asked permission before entering rooms and supported people to remain as independent as possible.
“The staff are very caring, supportive and easy to get on with. They make sure I get what I need.” from the report
Personalised care
People were involved in their care plans, which recorded their mental and physical health needs and were kept up to date.
“Care plans and risk assessments had been kept up to date so that staff were fully aware of and could meet people's current needs.” from the report
Support for independence
People were encouraged to cook, manage parts of their own care and develop skills for more independent living.
“The aim of the service is to promote people's independence. The staff encourage people to learn new skills and develop existing skills so that at some point in the future people can live independently.” from the report
People's views taken seriously
Residents' meetings, surveys and a manager's weekly surgery gave people ways to raise ideas and concerns. One person had joined a management group.
“The resident's meetings are very good. The management are interested in what we want and what we think about the service.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you monitor medicines errors now, and has the change made during the inspection continued?
- 02How would you assess and support my relative's particular mental health needs before they moved in?
- 03What activities and daily living skills would my relative be able to choose and take part in?
- 04How are people involved in reviewing their care plans and risk assessments?
- 05What support would be arranged if my relative later needed end of life care?
This was a planned inspection of the overall service, including the premises and care provided, and it assessed all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 April 2019 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, October 2016
Anahita Recovery Centre was rated Good; inspectors found safe, respectful and well-organised support, with a new manager due to take over.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 21 September 2016. One inspector and a person with experience of this type of care observed support, checked records and spoke with six people, two staff members, the manager and the provider. They also asked the local authority for its views.
The home supported 22 people with mental health needs and had places for up to 24. Inspectors found suitable safeguarding, staffing, risk assessment and medicines arrangements. Staff had relevant training and people could access food, drinks, GPs and other health professionals.
People were treated with respect and involved in their support plans. They had social activities, information about the home and a complaints process. The provider checked the quality of care and acted on people's suggestions.
All five areas were rated Good: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. At the previous inspection on 23 June 2014, the provider was meeting the regulations that were inspected.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe and that staff treated them well. Safeguarding training and whistle-blowing arrangements were in place.
“People told us they felt safe and that staff treated them well.” from the report
Safe medicines support
Inspectors found medicines were stored securely, given as prescribed and checked through audits. Staff had training and competency checks before administering medicines.
“There were systems in place to ensure that people consistently received their medicines as prescribed by health care professionals.” from the report
Respectful care
Staff were observed speaking to people respectfully and protecting their dignity and privacy. People were involved in discussions about their care.
“Throughout the course of our inspection we observed staff speaking with and treating people in a respectful and dignified manner.” from the report
Activities and independence
People had a varied programme of activities, including outings and clubs. The home's stated aim was to help people develop skills and move towards independent living.
“People were provided with a range of appropriate social activities both in and out of the centre.” from the report
Quality checks
The provider regularly reviewed medicines, care files, incidents, training, complaints and other parts of the service. Residents' suggestions were acted on.
“The provider had effective systems in place to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01Who is now managing the home, and has the new manager applied to the CQC to become the registered manager?
- 02How will you assess and review my relative's mental health, physical health and relapse risks?
- 03How are medicines checked, including support for anyone who wants to self-medicate?
- 04What activities and support for independent living would be available for my relative?
- 05How are families involved in care planning and kept informed about health appointments or changes in support?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall quality of the service, covering all five CQC areas and providing an overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 October 2016 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Anahita Recovery Centre
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 August 2012.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Greenwich
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £980 to £1,250 a week. 87 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She cared for my mum with Alzheimer's with endless patience and kindness, always arriving with a smile and a positive attitude”
“Usha rapidly became 'one of the family' and is sorely missed.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.