CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Anchor & Hope Care Services
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Risks were assessed and managed, medicines were securely stored and recorded, and inspectors found enough staff. However, there was no written guidance for staff about when to give 'as required' medicines.
- Effective?
- Good
- People had needs assessments and care plans, while staff received induction, training, supervision and appraisals. People were supported with food, consent, healthcare and joined-up care.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with care, dignity and respect. People were involved in decisions and their privacy was respected.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs and preferences. People were supported with activities, independence, complaints and important relationships.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a registered manager and systems for checking quality and safety. People, relatives and staff spoke positively about the management and teamwork.
What inspectors found, March 2018
Anchor & Hope Care Services was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with minor medicines checks still needing attention.
This was an unannounced inspection on 19 February 2018. One inspector spoke with two people, a relative, two staff members and the registered manager. They also observed care and checked care plans, medicines records, staff files, training records, policies, meetings and audits.
The home supported up to three people with mental health needs. Two people were living there during the inspection. Inspectors found that people were safe, their medicines were managed appropriately, staffing was sufficient and staff had suitable recruitment checks. People received support from trained staff and had access to healthcare, activities and relationships that mattered to them.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The home had fixed the problems found at the January 2017 inspection, including unsafe medicines management, incomplete quality checks and missed notifications to CQC. Inspectors still recommended regular medicines audits and noted that guidance for 'as required' medicines was not yet in place.
Medicines managed safely
Medicines were stored securely, records were up to date and staff signed to confirm doses had been given or recorded appropriately.
“Medicines were securely stored, recorded appropriately and administered as prescribed.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors observed a relaxed and friendly atmosphere. Staff knew people's backgrounds, preferences and routines, and treated them with dignity.
“We observed staff treating people in a caring manner during our inspection.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans were based on individual needs and preferences and were reviewed when needs changed. People were supported to remain independent and follow their interests.
“People received care which reflected their individual needs and preferences.” from the report
Improvements made
The home had addressed the problems found at the previous inspection, including medicines management, quality monitoring and required notifications.
“At this inspection we found that the issues we identified had been addressed, in line with the provider's action plan.” from the report
No written guidance for some medicines
needs fixingThere was no guidance for staff about when to give medicines prescribed to be taken 'as required'. Staff understood the circumstances, and the registered manager said guidance would be put in place.
“We noted that there was no guidance in place for staff on when to administer any medicines that had been prescribed to people to be taken 'as required'” from the report
Medicines audits were not regular
minorChecks on medicine stocks had been introduced, but full medicines audits were only carried out periodically by an external pharmacist. Inspectors recommended regular audits so possible problems could be found sooner.
“We recommended that medicines audits are conducted on a regular basis, to ensure any potential issues are identified in a timely manner.” from the report
- 01What written guidance is now in place for staff about when to give 'as required' medicines?
- 02How often are medicines audits completed, and who reviews the results?
- 03How would you support my relative if their mental health condition changed or they showed signs of relapse?
- 04How are my relative's care plan, preferences and independence reviewed over time?
- 05How will you keep me informed about changes in my relative's health or support needs?
This was an unannounced inspection covering the overall quality of the home and all five CQC questions, including the premises and care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 March 2018 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, February 2017
Anchor & Hope Care Services was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, person-centred care but serious medicine, risk and management shortfalls.
This was an unannounced inspection on 11 January 2017. The inspector spoke with two people using the service, a relative, staff, the registered manager and healthcare professionals. They also checked care records, recruitment records and management records.
The home supported up to three people with mental health needs, and two people were living there at the inspection. Inspectors found people were treated kindly, involved in decisions, supported to stay independent and helped to access healthcare, food and activities.
However, medicines were not always stored safely and medicine records were incomplete. Some risks had not been properly assessed. The home also failed to notify the Commission about an incident involving the police and its systems for checking safety and quality were not effective.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Effective, caring and responsive care were rated Good. Safe and well-led were rated Requires Improvement. The provider was required to send the Commission an action report, and the actions were to be checked at a later inspection.
Enough suitable staff
People said staff were available when needed. Recruitment checks were completed to help ensure staff were suitable for their roles.
“There were sufficient staff to meet people's needs. The provider undertook appropriate recruitment checks to ensure staff were suitable for their roles.” from the report
Support with health and food
People were supported to eat a balanced diet and use healthcare services, including primary and specialist mental health services.
“People were supported to maintain a balanced diet and had access to a range of healthcare services when needed.” from the report
Personalised daily life
Care records reflected people's needs and preferences. People had opportunities to enjoy hobbies, go out and maintain important relationships.
“People told us they had opportunities to pursue their individual interests and hobbies.” from the report
Medicine safety and records
seriousThe medicine storage temperature was above the recommended safe level on two occasions. Records did not show carried-over medicine balances or allergies, creating a risk of unsafe medicine support.
“Medicines were not always safely stored. Medicines records were not always robust.” from the report
Incomplete risk assessments
seriousThe home did not have a smoking risk assessment for one person despite previous concerns. There was also no fire risk assessment covering the premises fully.
“Risks to people had not always been assessed to ensure they were managed safely.” from the report
Weak safety monitoring
seriousChecks did not reliably cover window restrictors, water temperatures at individual taps or internal medicine checks. This meant the home could not show that important risks were being monitored effectively.
“Effective systems were not in place to assess, monitor and mitigate the risks relating to the health, safety and welfare of service users.” from the report
Missed notification
seriousThe registered manager did not notify the Commission about police involvement in an incident during 2016, as required.
“The provider had not always submitted notifications about notifiable events” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to keep medicines within the recommended safe temperature range, and how are temperatures now checked?
- 02How do you record medicine balances, allergies and internal medicine checks?
- 03Has a full fire risk assessment been completed, and how are individual smoking and other risks reviewed?
- 04How are window restrictors and hot water temperatures checked and recorded now?
- 05How do you make sure all incidents that must be reported to the Commission are notified on time?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five quality questions and the overall rating, based on records and discussions with people, a relative, staff, the registered manager and healthcare professionals. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 February 2017 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 Anchor & Hope Care Services
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- March 2018Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2017Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 8 February 2015.
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.