Attention: The information on this website is currently out of date and should not be relied upon..

Care Services

carehome, nursing and medical services directory


Anchorage Nursing Home, Hoylake, Wirral.

Anchorage Nursing Home in Hoylake, Wirral is a Nursing home specialising in the provision of services relating to accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care, caring for adults over 65 yrs, dementia and treatment of disease, disorder or injury. The last inspection date here was 18th March 2020

Anchorage Nursing Home is managed by Rolfields Limited who are also responsible for 1 other location

Contact Details:

Ratings:

For a guide to the ratings, click here.

Safe: Good
Effective: Good
Caring: Good
Responsive: Good
Well-Led: Good
Overall: Good

Further Details:

Important Dates:

    Last Inspection 2020-03-18
    Last Published 2017-09-02

Local Authority:

    Wirral

Link to this page:

    HTML   BBCode

Inspection Reports:

Click the title bar on any of the report introductions below to read the full entry. If there is a PDF icon, click it to download the full report.

1st August 2017 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

This inspection of Anchorage Nursing Home was carried out on 1 and 9 August 2017 and was unannounced on the first day. Anchorage Nursing Home is a large detached property in a residential area of Hoylake. The home is registered to provide accommodation for up to 39 people who require nursing or personal care. At the time of our visit, 37 people were resident at the home, many of whom were living with dementia.

At our last inspection in March 2016, we found a breach of Regulation 9 of the Health and Social Care Act because not all of the people who lived in the home had a plan of care that was appropriate and met their needs. Since that inspection, care plans had been moved to an electronic system. We found the electronic records were easy to read and reflected a person-centred approach to people’s care. Care staff recorded the personal care they had provided for people in their daily records.

The home was required to have a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are 'registered persons'. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. The home had a registered manager who had been in post for two years.

All of the relatives we spoke with were happy that their family member was in a safe environment and people who lived at the home said they felt safe at all times. Policies and procedures were in place to manage safeguarding concerns. The manager had reported safeguarding incidents to the Local Authority and Care Quality Commission appropriately and promptly. Staff had attended safeguarding training and those we spoke with were aware of their responsibilities regarding safeguarding. People’s medicines were managed safely.

There were enough staff to ensure that people received the support they needed in a timely way. Staff had regular training and supervision. We looked at the staff files for four new members of staff. Appropriate recruitment procedures had been followed to ensure that staff were safe and suitable to work with vulnerable people.

People we spoke with were happy with their meals and said they had plenty of choices.

The service was compliant with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The manager had made relevant Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard applications to the local authority. The care plans we looked at detailed people’s capacity to give consent and, where appropriate, relatives had been involved in making decisions about people’s care.

People told us that the staff were kind and caring and respected their privacy and dignity. Throughout the inspection we observed that staff interacted with people in a friendly and caring way.

The home’s complaints policy was displayed in the entrance hall and gave details of who people could contact if they wished to make a complaint. The manager maintained records of complaints she had dealt with and the action taken.

Everyone we met spoke highly of the home’s activities coordinator. Activities planned for the week were shown on a notice-board. They included puzzles and board games; armchair exercises; arts and crafts; gardening; one to one chats and singalongs.

All of the people we spoke with said they knew the manager because she came round and chatted to them. All said she was approachable and all felt she would act if they made a complaint. Staff we spoke with also considered that the manager was approachable and listened to them.

The manager shared with us the plans and ideas she had for further improvement of the home and it was evident that she was continuously looking for ways to take the service forward.

Records showed that regular meetings were held for all staff, and for specific groups of staff such as nurses, senior carers, kitchen staff. There were also relatives and residents meetings and all of the visitors

29th March 2016 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

We carried out an unannounced inspection of Anchorage Nursing Home on 29 March and 05 April 2016. Anchorage Nursing Home is a detached house providing nursing and residential care for up to 39 people, at the time of our visit the service was providing support for 38 people. Anchorage Nursing Home is situated in a residential area of Hoylake and there is a small parking area to the front of the home.

The home required a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. There was a manager in post who received notification of their completed registration on the second day of our visit, and so during the course of our inspection, became a registered manager with the Care Quality Commission.

We spoke with the provider and the registered manager and they were open and honest and told us that they recognised that the home needed to improve and that they were committed to the work required. People we spoke with told us they felt safe at the home. They had no worries or concerns. People’s relatives also told us they felt people were safe.

We found a breach in relation to care planning. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

We reviewed peoples care plans, not all people who lived in the home had a plan of care that was appropriate and met their needs and topical medicines are the home were not always managed in a proper or safe way.

We found that the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty (DoLS) 2009 legislation had been adhered to in the home. The registered manager told us of the people at the home who lacked capacity and that the appropriate number of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard (DoLS) applications had been submitted to the Local Authority in relation to people’s care.

The staff in the home knew the people they were supporting and the care they needed. We observed staff to be kind and respectful.

People who lived at the home and staff told us that the home was well led and staff told us that they felt well supported in their roles. We saw that the registered manager was a visible presence in and about the home and it was obvious that they knew the people who lived in the home extremely well.

Staff were recruited safely and there was sufficient evidence that staff had received a proper induction or suitable training to do their job role effectively. The majority of staff had been supervised and appraised. The registered nurses had the appropriate checks regarding their registration with the Nursing and Midwifery Council.

The provider had systems in place to ensure that people were protected from the risk of harm or abuse. We saw there were policies and procedures in place to guide staff in relation to safeguarding adults.

We saw that since the registered manager had been appointed there had been significant improvements in the service and the registered manager had a comprehensive action plan that showed what had been achieved and what was still outstanding.

6th April 2014 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

We gathered evidence to help us answer our five questions; Is the service caring? Is the service safe? Is the service responsive? Is the service effective? Is the service well-led?

Below is a summary of what we found.

Is the service safe?

The four staff members we spoke to were all able to confidently and correctly tell us what they would do in an event of a person using the service suffering a fall. We saw for those who were high risk of falls, interventions were in place that minimised their risk of falling and injury for example, specialised equipment such as sensor mats. These interventions were supported by care plans and risk assessments, which were reviewed on a regular basis. We saw staff responding quickly to those people who used the service who were walking around or wandering ensuring they were assisted. We saw staff were able to identify risks and manage them appropriately.

Records showed that staff at the home regularly undertook safeguarding training and the staff we spoke with corroborated this. We spoke to four staff who were able to tell us what abuse was, name the different types and what they would do if they witnessed abuse.

Is the service effective?

We were told by staff and relatives that activities at the home reflected what the person enjoyed doing prior coming to live at the home. One relative told us that they had all sorts of activities, which the person enjoyed such as baking and flower arranging.

We saw nurses kept communication logs of GPs and multi-disciplinary team member visits and advice, which was also reflected in people’s care plans. This showed that staff were following specialist advice and ensured continuity of care. We saw evidence of staff discussing these visits with relatives in a separate communication log. The four relatives we spoke to told us staff would always discuss their relative’s care with them.

Is the service caring?

We saw staff played black and white films up on a movie projector, which we saw some people with dementia recognised and enjoyed watching. One relative told us that staff would offer people a choice of films to watch, she said her mother really enjoyed picking one she remembered. We also noted that staff were polite when speaking to people who use the services and greeted them in a friendly manner. The four relatives we spoke to corroborated this. We saw staff would sit with the people who lived at the home and talk about their families and social activities. We observed and corroborated that staff gave people choices, were caring and inclusive of people who used the service.

Is the service responsive?

We saw the home had recently undergone refurbishments and had made space for two lounges one ‘quiet’ lounge and one ‘high dependency’ lounge. The people in the high dependency lounge were observed by at least one member of staff at all times to ensure their safety. The provider had made sure that sufficient staff with the right skills and knowledge supported people who used the service. We saw evidence in the four care plans we reviewed of the people who used the service had their dependency assessed. The registered manager told us “We recently increased the staffing level over the year to meet the requirements of the people’s needs”.

Is the service well-led?

We asked people who lived at the service, relatives and staff about the registered manager and her ability to deal with concerns. They all felt she dealt with any issues very promptly and all gave positive comments about her management style and personality for example, “She is very approachable”, “Friendly”, “Very nice and kind” and “Good leader”.

26th April 2013 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

We observed nurses and care workers supporting people in a respectful and sensitive manner. We spoke to three people who used the service who told us they were happy with the care and support they were offered. One comment made was:

"Life is easier now I am living here. I know I made the right choice when I made the decision to leave my home.” We spoke with three family members who told us they were very satisfied with the care and support offered to their relative. One comment made was:

“Before my relative moved the manager did a full assessment of their needs including routines, likes and dislikes. This made us as a family feel the staff wanted to get to know our relative and wanted to look after them properly.”

We saw from the care records that there was assessment of people's needs and this was done in consultation with the individual and their family members or representative. Each person had a personalised care plan and risk assessments that were reviewed regularly and showed what their needs and preferences were.

Staff members felt supported and showed that they had a good understanding of the people they were caring for and were able to meet their various needs. Staff confirmed they were provided with safeguarding adults training to make sure they understood how to keep people safe.

There were systems in place to monitor the safety and quality of the service provided.

24th May 2012 - During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made pdf icon

We observed people being supported in a respectful and sensitive manner. With care workers explaining to people who used the service what support they were about to give and why. All staff interacted with the people who used the service in a manner that promoted their dignity and privacy. During the afternoon of our visit we observed care workers sitting and chatting with people who used the service and their families.

We spoke with five people who used the service. All said they felt cared for and respected by the staff team. Some comments made were:

“I am very happy here and feel I am well looked after.”

“The staff treat me like an adult which is refreshing.”

“My own vicar visits me each week.”

“I’ve had a few health problems lately but the staff are very good and make sure I’m eating properly.”

We spoke with a family member who confirmed their relative had visited the Anchorage prior to being offered a place and moving into the service. Other family members spoken with told us they were happy with the care and support offered to their relatives and felt involved in their care. They told us they would feel confident sharing any concerns with the temporary manager of the home or the owners. Some comments made were;

“I am very happy with the care my mother receives and I have been asked by the owners to set up a residents/relatives group. To have a group discussion with other relatives and some residents will be a positive move forward. I have already set up written communication lines.”

“It was difficult to see my father move in here but he has settled so well it has made such a difference to all of us. We visit regularly and the staff are so welcoming we are always offered a drink and are given an update of how he has been. They have even invited mum to stay for lunch if she wants to and they allow us to remain involved in dad’s life which is great.”

We sought information about the service offered at the Anchorage from Wirral Department of Adults Social Services (DASS). No issues of concern were raised.

31st January 2012 - During an inspection in response to concerns pdf icon

This inspection visit was carried out in response to concerns raised about the care and support offered to people who lived at the service.

As part of our inspection visit we spent approximately two hours observing how people were supported in their daily lives.

We observed limited verbal interaction between the staff team and the people who lived at the service. Care workers did not explain what they were doing to people. For example people were moved into wheelchairs and taken to toilets without any explanation or discussion. Activities were set up without any involvement with people to encourage them or seek their views as to whether these were activities they wished to take part in.

At 4:30pm we noticed the curtains in the lounge of the dementia care unit were closed. We asked the nurse in charge and the manager why they had been drawn so early. Both stated this did not usually happen and were unsure why it had happened on the day of the visit. Later we noticed the curtains had been drawn back.

We noted that in the dementia care unit from approximately 5:45pm people were being taken to their bedrooms to get ready for bed. We noted that care workers were not explaining what was happening or offering people a choice whether to stay in the lounge or go to their bedrooms.

We discussed these issues with the Manager and the Provider of Anchorage Nursing Home. Both reported they would review the care practices with regard to involving people in the choices and decisions in how they are supported and cared for.

During our visit to the service we spoke with and spent time with 20 people who used the service. Some comments made were;

“On the whole the staff are very good.”

“Sometimes the younger staff can have a bit of an attitude.”

“I’m well looked after.”

“This is probably the best one I’ve been in.”

We spoke with three family members of people who used the service they told us they were happy with the care and support provided to their relatives.

 

 

Latest Additions: