CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Anvil Close
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. There were enough staff, although the home had vacancies and used some regular agency staff. Inspectors found some incorrect counts for as-needed medicines, which were audited and addressed during the inspection.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had relevant training and people received suitable support with health, food, communication and decision-making. Inspectors identified unclear records for some autism training, missing diabetes training for staff supporting one person and irregular staff supervision.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff knew people's preferences and supported them to make choices, keep relationships, try new experiences and develop independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs, communication methods, routines, wishes and goals. People could take part in activities and change their plans, although some activity and sensory rooms were being used for storage.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had visible and approachable management, effective audits and a positive culture. Staff, relatives and people using the service were involved in giving feedback and developing the service.
What inspectors found, January 2023
Anvil Close is rated Good; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, with some medicines, training and activity-room issues addressed or being followed up.
The inspection took place on 8 and 10 November 2022. One inspector visited, including an unannounced first day. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff, and checked care records, staff files, medicines, training and quality checks.
The home supported 11 people with learning disabilities in four shared flats. Inspectors found that people were safe, treated with kindness and supported to make choices. Staff knew people well and helped them take part in activities, keep relationships and use local services.
All five areas were rated Good: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. The overall rating stayed Good, as it had been at the previous inspection published in May 2018. The inspection was prompted partly by concerns about the culture and management, but inspectors found no evidence that people were at risk of harm from those concerns.
Choice and independence
People had control over their lives and were supported to pursue interests, achieve goals and personalise their rooms.
“The service supported people to have the maximum possible choice, control and independence.” from the report
Kind and familiar care
Staff knew people well, understood their likes and needs, and built warm relationships with them.
“People received kind and compassionate care from staff who used positive, respectful language which people understood and responded well to.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's communication needs, routines, preferences and hopes for the future. Staff understood these plans.
“Care plans were person-centred and included people's wishes, their likes and dislikes, how they liked to spend their day and their daily routines.” from the report
Positive leadership
Managers were visible and approachable. Staff felt supported, and audits helped identify areas for improvement.
“Governance processes were effective and helped to hold staff to account, keep people safe, protect people's rights and provide good quality care and support.” from the report
As-needed medicines counts
needs fixingSome as-needed medicines, such as painkillers, had not been counted correctly. The manager carried out an audit by the second day and said this was a one-off.
“We found some instances where medicines that were given as needed, such as painkillers were not counted correctly.” from the report
Training records
needs fixingThe home did not clearly record when some staff had completed autism training. Staff supporting one person had also not yet received the diabetes training required by the risk assessment.
“The service's training records did not clearly identify when staff had completed it.” from the report
Staff supervision
minorStaff supervision took place but was not as regular as expected. The manager booked further supervisions during the inspection.
“Although staff supervisions took place, these were not as regular as expected.” from the report
Activity and sensory rooms
minorSome rooms intended for activities or sensory use were being used for storage. The home had plans to improve the activities, sensory room and garden, which inspectors planned to follow up.
“Some of the individual activity/sensory rooms were being used as storage spaces rather than for their intended purpose.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that as-needed medicines are counted and recorded correctly?
- 02Have all staff completed the training needed to support each person's learning disability, autism and health needs?
- 03How often does each staff member receive supervision, and how is this recorded?
- 04Have the activity and sensory rooms been cleared of storage and returned to their intended use?
- 05How will you turn each person's hopes and dreams into practical goals and review their progress?
This was an inspection focused on applying the Right support, right care, right culture principles, while also checking all five rating areas and infection prevention and control; it was prompted partly by concerns about the home's culture and management. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 January 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, February 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection control and visiting arrangements were being managed safely.
This was a targeted inspection on 3 February 2022. It looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements, and whether COVID-19 staffing pressures were affecting the home.
Inspectors found good practice. Visitors were screened for symptoms, handwashing and hand sanitiser were available, and visiting was allowed in a safe way. Staff used protective equipment correctly and people isolating were kept away from shared areas.
The home carried out COVID-19 testing, daily symptom checks and cleaning checks. Inspectors were assured that the home had suitable infection control arrangements and was meeting the COVID-19 vaccination requirement that applied at the time.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the inspection did not give an overall quality rating or a rated judgement for the five areas of care.
Safe visiting
Visitors were allowed to enter after symptom screening. Handwashing, hand sanitiser and clear infection control information were available.
“Facilities were in place for visitors to wash hands or use hand sanitiser on entering and leaving the home.” from the report
Protective equipment
Staff used protective equipment where distancing was not possible. The home had provided infection control and protective equipment training.
“Staff wore Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) in areas where 2m social distancing could not be achieved.” from the report
Cleaning and hygiene
The home had cleaning schedules covering frequently touched areas, and checks showed that the schedules were being followed.
“Records/checks of cleaning showed compliance with the cleaning schedule.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you currently manage staffing pressures when staff are absent because of COVID-19?
- 02What screening and infection control steps are currently used for visitors?
- 03How do you support people who may find staff wearing PPE frightening or upsetting?
- 04How are cleaning of high-touch areas and the cleaning schedule checked now?
- 05How are residents and staff currently tested when someone may have COVID-19?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it did not provide an overall rating or rated judgements for the other areas. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 February 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 Anvil Close
5 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- January 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- May 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- October 2015Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvement
- March 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 March 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Wandsworth
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 £1,260 a week. 77 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”
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
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.