CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Anning House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe, safeguarding concerns were handled appropriately, and medicines and infection control were managed safely. Staffing vacancies remained under recruitment, with agency staff used to cover some absences and vacancies.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received support with their health, nutrition and choices, and staff worked with health professionals. Some refresher training was overdue and some diabetes care plans needed more detail.
- Caring?
- Good
- People, relatives and professionals described staff as caring and respectful. Inspectors saw staff protect privacy, promote independence and respond kindly when people were upset or uncomfortable.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care and activities were planned around people's needs, preferences and communication requirements. Care plans were being transferred to a new electronic system but were not always up to date.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Management used audits, feedback and a service improvement plan to monitor quality. Record keeping remained an area for improvement, although the provider and manager were taking action.
What inspectors found, March 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care, but care records were not always accurate or up to date.
This was an unannounced, planned comprehensive inspection on 8 and 19 December 2022. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and health professionals. They observed care and checked care plans, medicine records, staff files and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and well cared for. Inspectors found safe medicines practice, suitable staffing, good infection control, respectful care, support with food and health needs, and activities that helped people maintain relationships.
The main weakness was record keeping. Some risk assessments and care plans were not accurate or up to date, including information about diabetes care. The provider was moving records to a new electronic system and was already working on improvements. CQC recommended that accurate and current records continue to be developed.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe. Staff understood safeguarding and knew how to report concerns.
“People we spoke with said they felt safe at Anning House.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw attentive staff supporting people with dignity, privacy and kindness. People were encouraged to remain as independent as possible.
“Staff were attentive, caring and there were lots of positive interactions with people.” from the report
Good health and food support
People had access to health professionals and received support with eating and drinking. Inspectors found food choices and special diets were understood.
“People were supported to drink enough to keep healthy. People told us they enjoyed the food.” from the report
Activities and relationships
The home offered group and individual activities and supported people to stay in contact with family and friends.
“There was full activity programme at the service which included external entertainers.” from the report
Open management
The management team sought feedback, used audits and worked with the local authority on improvements. Staff said managers were supportive and approachable.
“Throughout the inspection the registered manager and provider representative were open and proactive in their responses to our findings.” from the report
Care records needed updating
needs fixingSome risk assessments and care plans did not contain enough current information. This included details about managing high or low blood sugars and diabetic foot care. CQC made a recommendation to keep improving the records.
“Risk assessments were not always completed accurately, and some assessments had not been updated when changes had been made.” from the report
Some training was overdue
needs fixingSome refresher training, including moving and handling updates, was overdue. The home had arranged and was planning further training.
“Some refresher training was overdue, for example some staff required moving and handling updates.” from the report
Reliance on agency staff
minorThere had been a high reliance on agency staff because of recruitment difficulties. Most people felt staffing was sufficient, but one person had less confidence in agency staff and sometimes experienced longer waits.
“There had been a high reliance on agency staff since the last inspection due to recruitment challenges.” from the report
- 01How have you completed the work to make care plans and risk assessments accurate and up to date?
- 02What information is recorded about managing diabetes, including high or low blood sugars and diabetic foot care?
- 03Which staff training was overdue at the inspection, and has all refresher training now been completed?
- 04How many agency staff are currently used, and how do you ensure they know each person's needs and preferences?
- 05How do you check that call bells are answered promptly when staffing is short?
This was an unannounced planned comprehensive inspection of the new provider, with all five key questions assessed; a focused inspection on 06 May 2022 had rated Safe and Well-led as Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 March 2023 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, June 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, but food and fluid records were not always complete.
This was an unannounced inspection in May 2022. Inspectors visited the home, spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care and reviewed care plans, medicines records and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Responsive and Well-led were rated Good. Inspectors found people were treated kindly, risks were assessed, staffing was sufficient for current needs, and activities supported people's interests and choices.
The inspection found some records about people's food and fluid intake were not consistently totalled or reviewed. The manager and provider acted straight away, but inspectors could not yet assess whether the changes had worked. The overall rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw caring interactions and people appeared comfortable and relaxed with staff. Staff offered reassurance and respected people's choices.
“Throughout the inspection we saw kind, relaxed, compassionate and caring interactions between people and staff.” from the report
Safe staffing and recruitment
There were enough suitably skilled staff for the people living at the home. Recruitment checks were complete, and regular agency staff were used to reduce risks from staff shortages.
“There were enough suitably skilled and experienced staff on duty to meet the needs of people currently living at the service.” from the report
Choice and activities
People could choose how to spend their day, what to eat and drink, and whether to join individual or group activities. Activities reflected people's interests.
“There was a planned programme of activities seven days a week.” from the report
Medicines handled safely
People received medicines as prescribed, with suitable arrangements for storage, ordering and disposal. Staff were trained and their competence was checked.
“People received their medicines in a safe and caring way, as prescribed for them.” from the report
Food and fluid records
needs fixingRecords of food and fluid intake were not always totalled or reviewed to check that people were meeting their fluid targets. The home acted immediately, but the impact of the changes had not been assessed.
“Accurate record keeping remains an area for improvement identified in the manager and provider's service improvement plan.” from the report
One care plan needed more detail
seriousOne positive behaviour support plan did not contain enough detail to keep the person safe during agreed restrictive interventions. The manager and provider acted immediately.
“One person's positive behaviour support plan needed some additional details to ensure their safety during some planned and agreed restrictive interventions.” from the report
No registered manager in post
minorThere was no registered manager at the time of the inspection. The manager had applied to register and the application was still being processed.
“At the time of our inspection, there was not a registered manager in post.” from the report
- 01How are you now checking and recording each person's food and fluid intake, and what happens if someone does not meet their fluid target?
- 02What changes have been made to make electronic care plans more personalised?
- 03Has the manager's application to become registered been completed since this inspection?
- 04How do you make sure agency staff know each person's risks, routines and care needs?
- 05How are families kept informed about changes in a person's needs and daily wellbeing?
This focused inspection covered Safe, Responsive and Well-led; Effective and Caring were not inspected and their ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 June 2022 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 Anning House
4 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2022Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2022Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not ratedCaring: Inspected but not rated
- January 2020GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 August 2018.
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
15 live-in carers within about an hour of Dorset
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 £1,040 to £1,340 a week. 11 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Even when things get a bit chaotic (as they sometimes do!), you’ve handled it with patience and a sense of humour — which is gold.”
“Nina was patient, focussed on my aunt's physical well-being, and unfazed by what at the time was a new and uncertain situation”
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.