Albert House Residential Home

Updated 9 April 2021

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

As part of the Care Quality Commission’s (CQC’s) response to the coronavirus pandemic we are looking at the preparedness of care homes in relation to infection prevention and control. This was a targeted inspection looking at the infection control and prevention measures the provider has in place.

This inspection took place on 24 March 2021 and was announced.

Updated 9 April 2021

The inspection visit took place on 03 November 2017 and was unannounced.

Albert House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The care home is registered to accommodate 29 people across two separate units, each of which has separate adapted facilities. One of the units specialises in providing care to people living with dementia. At the time of the visit there were 28 people who lived at the home.

At the last inspection in October 2016 the service was rated 'Good'. At this inspection we found the service remained 'Good'.

A registered manager was available at the home. 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 registered manager had systems in place to record safeguarding concerns, accidents and incidents and take appropriate action when required. Recruitment checks were carried out to ensure suitable people were employed to work at the service. Our observations and discussions with staff and relatives of people who stayed at the service confirmed sufficient staff were on duty. Before the inspection we had received concerns about insufficient staffing levels at the home. We found the provider was in the process of recruiting an additional member of care staff in response to the concerns.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way; the policies and systems at the service supported this practice. The service had taken appropriate action where people lacked the capacity to make decisions about their care and needed to be deprived of their liberty to keep them safe.

Care plans were in place detailing how people wished to be supported. People who received support, or where appropriate their relatives, were involved in decisions and consented to their care.

Risk assessments had been developed to minimise the potential risk of harm to people who stayed at the service. These had been kept under review and were relevant to the care and support people required. Additional measures had been taken to minimise risks in response to serious incidents that had occurred in the home.

We found improvements were required to demonstrate how staff observed people after falls and documentation and to ensure people at risk of choking were adequately monitored. There was no business contingency plan which would provide staff with guidance on dealing with unplanned events and emergencies in the home.

Staff responsible for assisting people with their medicines had received training to ensure they had the competency and skills required.

We observed regular snacks and drinks were provided between meals to ensure people received adequate nutrition and hydration. Comments from people who stayed at the service were all positive about the quality of meals provided. One person said, “The food here is the best.”

We found people had access to healthcare professionals and their healthcare needs were met.

People who used the service and their relatives knew how to raise a concern or to make a complaint. The complaints procedure was available and people said they were encouraged to raise concerns.

The registered manager used a variety of methods to assess and monitor the quality of Albert House. These included external audits, regular internal audits of the service, surveys and staff and relatives meetings to seek the views of people about the quality of care being provided.