Inspection on 12/10/06 for The Anchorage

This inspection was carried out on 12th October 2006.

CSCI has not published a star rating for this report, though using similar criteria we estimate that the report is Good. The way we rate inspection reports is consistent for all houses, though please be aware that this may be different from an official CSCI judgement.

The inspector made no statutory requirements on the home as a result of this inspection and there were no outstanding actions from the previous inspection report.

Other inspections for this house

The Anchorage 27/06/07

The Anchorage 12/10/05

The Anchorage 06/07/05

The Anchorage 09/12/04

The Anchorage 17/06/04

Similar services:

2 Perhaver Park

The Vicarage

St George`s

5 Seafield Road

Credence House

Radfords

Honeybourne House

32 Beaumont Way

Extracts from inspection reports are licensed from CQC, this page was updated on 09/07/2008.

CARE HOME ADULTS 18-65 The Anchorage 47 Abbotsham Road Bideford Devon EX39 3AF Lead Inspector Andy Towse Key Unannounced Inspection 12th October 2006 10:00 The Anchorage DS0000022116.V309094.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 1 The Commission for Social Care Inspection aims to: • • • • Put the people who use social care first Improve services and stamp out bad practice Be an expert voice on social care Practise what we preach in our own organisation Reader Information Document Purpose Author Audience Further copies from Copyright Inspection Report CSCI General Public 0870 240 7535 (telephone order line) This report is copyright Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) and may only be used in its entirety. Extracts may not be used or reproduced without the express permission of CSCI www.csci.org.uk Internet address The Anchorage DS0000022116.V309094.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 2 This is a report of an inspection to assess whether services are meeting the needs of people who use them. The legal basis for conducting inspections is the Care Standards Act 2000 and the relevant National Minimum Standards for this establishment are those for Care Homes for Adults 18-65. They can be found at www.dh.gov.uk or obtained from The Stationery Office (TSO) PO Box 29, St Crispins, Duke Street, Norwich, NR3 1GN. Tel: 0870 600 5522. Online ordering: www.tso.co.uk/bookshop This report is a public document. Extracts may not be used or reproduced without the prior permission of the Commission for Social Care Inspection. The Anchorage DS0000022116.V309094.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service The Anchorage Address 47 Abbotsham Road Bideford Devon EX39 3AF 01237 421002 01237 421002 jeddinternational@yahoo.co.uk Telephone number Fax number Email address Provider Web address Name of registered provider(s)/company (if applicable) Name of registered manager (if applicable) Type of registration No. of places registered (if applicable) Jedd International Ltd. Donna May Bell Care Home 9 Category(ies) of Learning disability (9) registration, with number of places The Anchorage DS0000022116.V309094.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: 1. 2. 3. This variation allows the admission of one named person, aged 16 years, in the category of Learning Disability (LD). The maximum number of placements including that of the named service user will remain at 9. On the termination of the placement of the named service user, the registered person will notify the Commission and the particulars and conditions of this registration will revert to those held on the 28 November 2005 12th October 2005 Date of last inspection Brief Description of the Service: The Anchorage is a large, older type property situated within easy access of the facilities available at Bideford. It is registered to accommodate up to 9 people who have a learning disability. All residents are accommodated in single occupancy bedrooms. All communal facilities, such as the lounge, kitchen and dining area are situated on the ground floor, enabling them to be accessed by residents with restricted mobility. The home has garden areas which are accessible to all residents. Copies of previous CSCI inspection reports are kept in the office of the home. The home’s scale of fees ranges from £380 to £1,300 per week. Additional charges are levied for toiletries, clothing, hair dressing and chiropody. Residents who receive day care from the private day care service part fund this themselves. Fees are also charged for private IT lessons one resident has arranged. The Anchorage DS0000022116.V309094.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. This was unannounced inspection which took place over a period of eight hours. The information contained in this report came from responses to surveys forwarded to residents, staff and professionals involved with The Anchorage and also a detailed questionnaire completed by the registered manager. Six out of eight residents responded to the pre inspection survey as did seven members of staff. At the time of the inspection this information was supplemented by information obtained through discussions with staff, residents and the manager, together with a tour of the premises and inspection of records, including care plans. What the service does well: What has improved since the last inspection? What they could do better: Whilst some decoration has been carried out, the shower and toilet facilities on the ground floor would benefit from being upgraded. The Anchorage DS0000022116.V309094.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 6 Please contact the provider for advice of actions taken in response to this inspection. The report of this inspection is available from enquiries@csci.gsi.gov.uk or by contacting your local CSCI office. The Anchorage DS0000022116.V309094.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 7 DETAILS OF INSPECTOR FINDINGS CONTENTS Choice of Home (Standards 1–5) Individual Needs and Choices (Standards 6-10) Lifestyle (Standards 11-17) Personal and Healthcare Support (Standards 18-21) Concerns, Complaints and Protection (Standards 22-23) Environment (Standards 24-30) Staffing (Standards 31-36) Conduct and Management of the Home (Standards 37 – 43) Scoring of Outcomes Statutory Requirements Identified During the Inspection The Anchorage DS0000022116.V309094.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 8 Choice of Home The intended outcomes for Standards 1 – 5 are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Prospective service users have the information they need to make an informed choice about where to live. Prospective users’ individual aspirations and needs are assessed. Prospective service users know that the home that they will choose will meet their needs and aspirations. Prospective service users have an opportunity to visit and to “test drive” the home. Each service user has an individual written contract or statement of terms and conditions with the home. The Commission consider Standard 2 the key standard to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 2 Quality in this outcome area is excellent. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The home’s admission procedure safeguards residents by ensuring that only residents whose needs can be met are admitted to the home. EVIDENCE: The files of a most recently admitted resident were inspected. Records showed that the admission was purposely, a prolonged process. It encompassed several visits to the home by the prospective resident. These visits comprised a visit with carers, an evening visit and two separate visits. These included a stay of two days with an overnight stay and visit lasting from Monday to Friday. At the start of the process the home was given an assessment of the prospective resident. This had been compiled by a care manager and written in relation to the the needs of the prospective resident, which had been gained from a former place of residence. Following the visits to ‘The Anchorage’ the care manager compiled a further assessment giving more contemporary details of the resident’s abilities and needs which would enable the home to decide whether they had the resources to meet the resident’s assessed needs. When the home decided, through the process of meeting the resident, his/her care manager and his/her carers and with consideration of the assessment that The Anchorage DS0000022116.V309094.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 9 the resident’s needs could be met, following further discussion with the care manager, a nine week probationary period of residence was offered. The nine week probationary period allows for both the home to decide whether it could meet the resident’s assessed needs and also allows for the resident to exercise his/her choice about whether to stay at ‘The Anchorage’. All the response received from residents to the pre inspection survey showed that they all considered that they had received enough information to make an informed choice about whether to move into the home. Responses also showed that relatives, filling in questionnaires on behalf of relatives also thought that they had been given a ample information. The Anchorage DS0000022116.V309094.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 10 Individual Needs and Choices The intended outcomes for Standards 6 – 10 are: 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Service users know their assessed and changing needs and personal goals are reflected in their individual Plan. Service users make decisions about their lives with assistance as needed. Service users are consulted on, and participate in, all aspects of life in the home. Service users are supported to take risks as part of an independent lifestyle. Service users know that information about them is handled appropriately, and that their confidences are kept. The Commission considers Standards 6, 7 and 9 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 6, 7, 9 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Residents’ needs are met through personal plans which reflect their changing needs, aspirations and personal goals. Residents are assisted in making decisions about everyday life. Residents are encouraged to be independent. EVIDENCE: All residents have their own files. Three such files were inspected. All contained care plans. The plans were written out in two formats, one making use of the ‘widget’ system in order that it would be more easily understood by the resident to whom it was applicable. There are instructions on files regarding the purpose of the plans and part of this states that the plan is a ‘tool to make clear the aims, wishes and dreams of the service user’ and that it should be ‘used by and for the service user with The Anchorage DS0000022116.V309094.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 11 help and support from key people to ensure an improved quality of life is maintained’. The home operates a key worker system. This means that residents are allocated a specific staff member who is responsible for ensuring that their care needs are met. It is one of the responsibilities of a key worker to assist the resident in compiling and understanding his/her care plan. Residents are involved in compiling their care plans. This was confirmed through discussion with with residents, staff and the manager and from inspecting records which had been signed by both the key worker and the resident concerned. In order that residents can continue to develop their independence risk assessments were carried out. These were kept on individual files. These covered issues such as access to electrical tools, ability to self medicate, and preparing food. The risk assessments had been written in ‘widget’ format to make them more easily understood by residents. There is a system in place for reviewing care plans every three months. Residents attend these reviews and receive copies of the minutes which they and the key worker sign. These show how each resident is developing and give the opportunity for the aims and objectives in the plan to be amended to meet the changing needs and aspirations of each resident. The plan also states clearly goals which residents want to achieve and records are kept to show that these have been achieved or, in cases where they have not, what the reason is. Often the plans included individual choices such as learning to garden, learn to use a computer, going to the cinema and making contact with relatives. Whilst most of the plans were up to date with reviews, one which had been taken over by an existing staff member following the departure of a key worker was found to need reviewing and this was brought to the attention of the manager. The majority of residents who responded to the pre inspection questionnaire said that they ‘always’ made decisions about what they did each day. All residents have their own personal bank accounts. One resident, who has been assessed as able to manage his/her finances also has a bank card and uses this to withdraw his/her own monies. The Anchorage DS0000022116.V309094.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 12 The Anchorage DS0000022116.V309094.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 13 Lifestyle The intended outcomes for Standards 11 - 17 are: 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Service users have opportunities for personal development. Service users are able to take part in age, peer and culturally appropriate activities. Service users are part of the local community. Service users engage in appropriate leisure activities. Service users have appropriate personal, family and sexual relationships. Service users’ rights are respected and responsibilities recognised in their daily lives. Service users are offered a healthy diet and enjoy their meals and mealtimes. The Commission considers Standards 12, 13, 15, 16 and 17 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 12, 13, 15, 16, 17 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Residents engage in lifestyles that suit their needs and reflect their individual choices. Residents are part of the local community. Staff support residents in maintaining contact with family and relatives. Residents take responsibility for their daily lives. Residents enjoy the food at ‘The Anchorage’ EVIDENCE: Whilst there are no residents at ‘The Anchorage’ who are in employment, residents do attend a local private day centre and one attends college. One The Anchorage DS0000022116.V309094.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 14 resident who is particularly interested and competent with computers has chosen to have private I.T. tuition. The private day centre offers activities, which have been chosen by residents either during residents’ meetings or in discussion with key workers. Examples of this are residents who want to do painting, typing or have a particular interest in music. Records showed that residents went into the community for trips out. Residents choose individually where they want to go, with examples being going swimming, going to a restaurant, horse riding or visiting the gardens at Rosemoor. The trips are then arranged with the resident, often accompanied by another resident, being taken to their chosen destination by a key worker. Residents who want can attend churches in the community and one resident has a vicar who visits the home specifically to see to his/her spiritual needs. Residents are also involved in selecting menus. This was shown in the minutes of residents’ meetings. These are held regularly and are a forum through which residents are informed about what is happening in the home, but also, they are used to involve residents in the running of the home and in making decisions about the home. The minutes of the meetings are written in widget and large print and are displayed prominently in the dining room for all residents to see. Family links are retained. One resident spoke of going home to stay for holidays with his/her mother. Another spoke of relatives visiting. A key worker spoke about how, in accordance with a resident’s stated wishes, contact had been made with a relative. Residents are all accommodated in single occupancy rooms. Residents were observed to be able to go to their rooms whenever they wished and staff were seen to respect their privacy by knocking on bedroom doors before entering. Residents were observed to be able to choose when to be alone. They have unrestricted access to all communal areas of the home. Staff spoken to say that residents had been offered keys but did not want this facility. This was confirmed in discussion with residents. Meal times are relaxed. The dining room is rather cramped for all residents and staff to sit together, but the inspector was assured that staff and residents normally sat together. Residents, when asked said that they enjoyed their food. With regard to special diets one staff member displayed a good knowledge about the specialist needs of people with diabetes. The Anchorage DS0000022116.V309094.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 15 Personal and Healthcare Support The intended outcomes for Standards 18 - 21 are: 18. 19. 20. 21. Service users receive personal support in the way they prefer and require. Service users’ physical and emotional health needs are met. Service users retain, administer and control their own medication where appropriate, and are protected by the home’s policies and procedures for dealing with medicines. The ageing, illness and death of a service user are handled with respect and as the individual would wish. The Commission considers Standards 18, 19, and 20 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 18, 19, 20 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Residents are supported by key workers in the way they prefer and when such assistance is required. Resident’s healthcare needs are met. Residents are protected by appropriate administration of medication. EVIDENCE: In discussion residents mainly knew who their key workers were and they had varying degrees of knowledge as to what the role of a key worker was. One said that although he/she usually bathed or showered him/herself, at times the key worker would offer assistance if required. Another spoke about choosing his/her own clothes but being given assistance from a key worker if requested. Residents, in discussion said that they were content with who their key worker was although at times they did not have a choice about who undertook this role. Resident’s files showed that they had their medication reviewed annually. Entries showed that residents had contact with general practitioners and The Anchorage DS0000022116.V309094.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 16 community nurses as well as other health care professionals such as dentists and chiropodists. In discussion, one staff member said that the role of key worker was to ensure that residents health care needs were met and that this included arranging and attending appointments with general practitioners, dentists and where appropriate, chiropodists. Medication was seen to be kept securely. As there is no provision for the storage of controlled drugs, if such were ever required, appropriate storage facilities would have to be made available. A member of staff was observed administering medication and described the process. Administered medication was seen to be recorded appropriately. The Anchorage DS0000022116.V309094.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 17 Concerns, Complaints and Protection The intended outcomes for Standards 22 – 23 are: 22. 23. Service users feel their views are listened to and acted on. Service users are protected from abuse, neglect and self-harm. The Commission considers Standards 22, and 23 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 22, 23 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Residents are protected by their knowledge of the complaints system and their confidence that staff will listen to their views. Residents are protected by staff that have an appropriate knowledge of what constitutes abuse and what should be done if it occurs. EVIDENCE: ‘The Anchorage’ has information on residents’ files and on display about how to make a complaint. This is written in widget and large print to make it more easily understood by residents. Residents who were spoken to said that if they had any concerns they would go to the manager or the staff or key worker. All responses from residents received prior to the inspection confirmed that they knew how to make a complaint and the same responses also confirmed that if the resident was not happy they knew they could approach either their key worker or the manager. There has been no complaint made over the last twelve months. All but the most recently employed staff have received training in the Protection of Vulnerable Adults whilst at the home. However, in conversation, those staff who had not received this training at ‘The Anchorage’ had either received it in places of previous employment or were able to demonstrate an appropriate understanding of what constituted abuse and what should be done if it was suspected of occurring. The Anchorage DS0000022116.V309094.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 18 The registered manager is aware that anyone considered unsuitable for working with vulnerable adults should be referred for possible inclusion on the Protection of Vulnerable Adults register. The Anchorage DS0000022116.V309094.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 19 Environment The intended outcomes for Standards 24 – 30 are: 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. Service users live in a homely, comfortable and safe environment. Service users’ bedrooms suit their needs and lifestyles. Service users’ bedrooms promote their independence. Service users’ toilets and bathrooms provide sufficient privacy and meet their individual needs. Shared spaces complement and supplement service users’ individual rooms. Service users have the specialist equipment they require to maximise their independence. The home is clean and hygienic. The Commission considers Standards 24, and 30 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 24, 30 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Residents live in an environment, which meets their needs. The Anchorage has an acceptable standard of hygiene and cleanliness EVIDENCE: ‘The Anchorage’ is an older type detached property situated in a convenient position to access the facilities of Bideford. All residents at the home are accommodated in single occupancy bedrooms. There are sufficient bathrooms and toilets situated on the ground and first floor. Residents can access all areas of the home, but anyone with a profound physical disability would be restricted to the ground floor. The shower facilities on the ground floor are adequate but would benefit from upgrading. Overall the home has an adequate standard of décor. Since the last inspection three bedrooms have been repainted in colours chosen by residents, the first The Anchorage DS0000022116.V309094.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 20 floor wc and bathroom has been repainted and a new shower unit has been installed downstairs. Externally there are gardens to the front and rear of the property. The garden to the rear of the property is enclosed and can be easily got to from the lounge or through the kitchen. Furnishings are domestic in size and style. The home has an appropriate standard of hygiene and cleanliness. The laundry is situated on the first floor and is therefore away from area where food is prepared or eaten. Residents clearly felt an ownership of their own rooms. They were seen to have been personalised and some had computers, CD players. Two residents were seen taking responsibility for tidying their rooms. The Anchorage DS0000022116.V309094.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 21 Staffing The intended outcomes for Standards 31 – 36 are: 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. Service users benefit from clarity of staff roles and responsibilities. Service users are supported by competent and qualified staff. Service users are supported by an effective staff team. Service users are supported and protected by the home’s recruitment policy and practices. Service users’ individual and joint needs are met by appropriately trained staff. Service users benefit from well supported and supervised staff. The Commission considers Standards 32, 34 and 35 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 32, 34, 35, 36 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Residents are supported by a well trained and supervised staff group. The home’s robust recruitment procedure protects residents from potential abuse. EVIDENCE: The employment of a recently appointed member of staff was tracked. This person was going through the process of induction common to all those employed at the home. Staff work in a supernumerary capacity for at least the first two weeks of their employment. During this time they go through a basic induction overseen by a senior member of staff. This includes being shown around the home, meeting the residents, being instructed about the role of key working, supervision and being introduced to the policies and procedures governing the home. Following this the staff member went through training specifically to assist him/her with working with people with learning disabilities. This included subjects such as empowerment, achievement and fulfilment, labelling and antidiscriminatory practice. As ongoing learning and also to assist trainers in The Anchorage DS0000022116.V309094.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 22 gauging training at the right level, staff completed tests throughout their training Staff are supported by having regular supervision sessions. This was confirmed by staff in conversation and also by the rota on the office wall detailing forthcoming supervision sessions. These are formal sessions, which are recorded. In addition to this, each staff member has an annual appraisal of their work and development. Following the home’s induction staff are expected to further develop their skills by undertaking Learning Disability Accredited Framework (LDAF) training. This is training to an agreed national standard. New staff also undergo a probationary period of employment, which culminates in a report of their abilities. Staff files also contained details of training undertaken by staff and also training which was identified as either being necessary or that which would benefit their development as people working with people with a learning disability. The proprietor has also previously offered training relating to the principle of normalisation, which is specifically to enable staff to work more effectively for the benefit of people who have a learning disability. The home has a commitment to staff training. It does however currently only has one third of their staff with NVQ 2 qualifications when the recommended minimum number is half the staff. This is partly due to staff leaving and should be rectified shortly as two staff are currently on NVQ 2 courses with one to commence next year. Communication is promoted by regular staff meetings when the needs of residents are discussed and staff are informed about issues relating to the running of the home and also training courses. Examination of staff files showed that before they were employed two written references were obtained and checks on the vulnerable adult protection record and police checks were carried out. Application forms were also kept, as was a record of the interview, which included the comments, and scoring carried out by those interviewing. The registered manager is aware that anyone considered unsuitable for working with vulnerable adults should be referred for possible inclusion on the Protection of Vulnerable Adults register. The Anchorage DS0000022116.V309094.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 23 Conduct and Management of the Home The intended outcomes for Standards 37 – 43 are: 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. Service users benefit from a well run home. Service users benefit from the ethos, leadership and management approach of the home. Service users are confident their views underpin all self-monitoring, review and development by the home. Service users’ rights and best interests are safeguarded by the home’s policies and procedures. Service users’ rights and best interests are safeguarded by the home’s record keeping policies and procedures. The health, safety and welfare of service users are promoted and protected. Service users benefit from competent and accountable management of the service. The Commission considers Standards 37, 39, and 42 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 37, 39, 42 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Resident’s benefit from a well run home. Resident’s benefit from a service, which is developed through seeking out their views. Residents are protected by the home’s policies, procedures and the regular servicing and safety testing of equipment. EVIDENCE: The registered manager has managed ‘The Anchorage’ for several years and has attained her NVQ 4 and Registered Manager’s Award. She therefore has the managerial experience and qualifications required of a registered manager. The Anchorage DS0000022116.V309094.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 24 She has demonstrated good organisational skills regarding recording and maintenance of records. She has also demonstrated a focus on residents being involved in the running of the home through resident’s meetings and the conveying of information to them through user-friendly formats such as the use of widget. The views of residents are sought through regularly held residents’ meetings. These meetings keep residents well informed about events happening at the home and also allow residents’ views to be obtained. The manager operates an ongoing audit of the quality of the service. This is done on a rotational basis. The previous year questionnaires written in large print and widget had been given to residents. They questionnaires had asked questions about their feelings about key workers, staff in general, the residents’ meetings, their rooms, privacy being respected and leisure activities. This year the manager is circulating questionnaires about the service to relatives and other stakeholders and is asking questions about their feelings on the standard of care, access for visits, helpfulness of staff and activities. According to information supplied by the manager the home has appropriate, regularly reviewed policies and procedures, which protect staff and residents. The home has also amended its financial policies to ensure that staff are aware that they should not assist in the drawing up of wills for residents or from benefiting from them. Records within the home showed that the home has taken the necessary precautions to safeguard residents by having valid gas and electrical safety certification. There was also valid certification for portable electrical appliances. With regard to fire safety, a lecture by a safety professional had been held in April 2006 with the previous one taking place in November 2005. This was complemented by a weekly testing of the fire alarm system and monthly fire drills in which the residents were involved. On this inspection it was observed that the unsafe practice of wedging open fire doors was not in evidence. The Anchorage DS0000022116.V309094.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 25 SCORING OF OUTCOMES This page summarises the assessment of the extent to which the National Minimum Standards for Care Homes for Adults 18-65 have been met and uses the following scale. The scale ranges from: 4 Standard Exceeded 2 Standard Almost Met (Commendable) (Minor Shortfalls) 3 Standard Met 1 Standard Not Met (No Shortfalls) (Major Shortfalls) “X” in the standard met box denotes standard not assessed on this occasion “N/A” in the standard met box denotes standard not applicable CHOICE OF HOME Standard No Score 1 X 2 3 3 X 4 X 5 x INDIVIDUAL NEEDS AND CHOICES Standard No 6 7 8 9 10 Score CONCERNS AND COMPLAINTS Standard No Score 22 3 23 3 ENVIRONMENT Standard No Score 24 3 25 X 26 X 27 X 28 X 29 X 30 3 STAFFING Standard No Score 31 X 32 X 33 3 34 3 35 3 36 3 CONDUCT AND MANAGEMENT OF THE HOME Standard No 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Score 3 3 X 3 x LIFESTYLES Standard No Score 11 X 12 3 13 3 14 X 15 3 16 3 17 3 PERSONAL AND HEALTHCARE SUPPORT Standard No 18 19 20 21 Score 3 3 3 X 3 X 3 X X 3 x The Anchorage DS0000022116.V309094.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 26 No Are there any outstanding requirements from the last inspection? STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS This section sets out the actions, which must be taken so that the registered person/s meets the Care Standards Act 2000, Care Homes Regulations 2001 and the National Minimum Standards. The Registered Provider(s) must comply with the given timescales. No. Standard Regulation Requirement Timescale for action RECOMMENDATIONS These recommendations relate to National Minimum Standards and are seen as good practice for the Registered Provider/s to consider carrying out. No. Refer to Standard Good Practice Recommendations The Anchorage DS0000022116.V309094.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 27 Commission for Social Care Inspection Exeter Suites 1 & 7 Renslade House Bonhay Road Exeter EX4 3AY National Enquiry Line: 0845 015 0120 Email: enquiries@csci.gsi.gov.uk Web: www.csci.org.uk © This report is copyright Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) and may only be used in its entirety. Extracts may not be used or reproduced without the express permission of CSCI The Anchorage DS0000022116.V309094.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 28 The Anchorage DS0000022116.V309094.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 29 - Please note that this information is included on www.bestcarehome.co.uk under license from the regulator. Re-publishing this information is in breach of the terms of use of that website. Discrete codes and changes have been inserted throughout the textual data shown on the site that will provide incontrovertable proof of copying in the event this information is re-published on other websites. The policy of www.bestcarehome.co.uk is to use all legal avenues to pursue such offenders, including recovery of costs. You have been warned!