CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Anchor House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control procedures were being followed. They found arrangements for visitors, shielding, social distancing, protective equipment, testing, cleaning and managing outbreaks.
- Effective?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, September 2020
Anchor House was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control arrangements during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 27 August 2020. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control measures as part of a national review of care homes during the coronavirus pandemic.
The home had plans for visits, screening and protective equipment. Staff supported people who needed to isolate or shield, used protective equipment, and followed guidance for social distancing and cleaning. Inspectors said the home was visibly clean.
Inspectors were assured that the home was managing infection risks in the areas they checked. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Managed visits safely
Visits were booked in advance. Visitors were screened, escorted and given protective equipment, with alternative contact offered when face-to-face visits were not possible.
“All visitors were met, health screened and escorted by staff during visits to monitor compliance with infection control and ensure peoples' and staff member's safety.” from the report
Support during isolation
Staff helped people to isolate or shield when needed. A regular staff group supported consistency and reduced the risk of cross infection.
“When people had needed to isolate or shield, staff had helped them to do this.” from the report
Clean environment
The home used daily environmental checks to help maintain cleaning standards. Inspectors found it visibly clean.
“The home was visibly clean throughout.” from the report
Up-to-date infection guidance
The home had an infection prevention and control lead and an up-to-date policy. Staff understood and followed the guidance for higher-risk procedures.
“The up to date IPC policy provided clear detail about how these should be operated safely.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How have your visiting arrangements changed since the inspection in August 2020?
- 02How do you now manage testing, protective equipment and isolation when someone may have an infection?
- 03How often are infection prevention and cleaning audits carried out, and what happens when a problem is found?
- 04How do you support residents to keep in touch with family when face-to-face visits are not possible?
- 05What recent inspection or other information can you provide about care areas that this targeted report did not assess?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control measures only, so it did not assess the other four CQC questions or give an overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 September 2020 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, January 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with all five areas rated Good.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 18 and 19 December 2018. Inspectors also spoke with relatives by telephone on 21 December. They met everyone living in the home, observed care, spoke with staff and managers, and checked care, medicines, staffing and other records.
The home supported seven people with learning disabilities. Inspectors found enough suitably trained staff, safe recruitment, safe medicines practice and clean, well-maintained premises. Staff knew people well and supported their choices, communication, health needs, independence and activities.
Relatives and health professionals gave positive feedback. Inspectors found kind and respectful care, good communication with families, and management systems that checked the quality and safety of the service. The overall rating remained Good, as did each of the five areas inspected.
Safe staffing
There were enough appropriately trained and experienced staff. Recruitment checks had been completed, and sickness or leave was covered.
“There were enough appropriately trained staff employed to support people.” from the report
Personalised communication
Staff understood that people communicated in different ways and adjusted their support to help people make choices and stay involved.
“Staff communicated to people in ways they preferred.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Relatives described staff as caring and approachable. Inspectors saw a friendly and calm atmosphere, with staff who knew people well.
“People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect by a staff team who knew them very well.” from the report
Activities and independence
People were supported to take part in hobbies and activities, maintain relationships and interests, and remain as independent as possible.
“People were supported to take part in a range of hobbies and activities to maintain their independence and increase their well being and prevent social isolation.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The home used audits, feedback, staff meetings and an action plan to monitor care and make improvements.
“This ensured a system of continuous improvement and quality monitoring was adhered to.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you adapt communication and daily support to match my relative's particular way of expressing choices or distress?
- 02How many staff would normally be on duty for my relative's needs, and who would provide cover during sickness or leave?
- 03How would you support my relative to take part in activities and maintain independence?
- 04How would you involve our family in care plan reviews and tell us about changes in health or care?
- 05How are medicines, including medicines given in food or drink, checked and recorded?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five ratings, and the report says the overall Good rating had not changed since the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 January 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.
Every inspection of Anchor House
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Good.
- September 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- January 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2016Goodup from InadequateSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2016InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 November 2011.
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
37 live-in carers within about an hour of Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole
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 £1,000 to £1,340 a week. 26 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“We could not have managed without her calm, reassuring presence and practical knowledge and skill in caring and supporting both my husband and the family and I.”
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
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.