You are here

Archived: Alba Rose Good


Inspection carried out on 22 May 2017

During a routine inspection

Alba Rose is registered to provide residential accommodation for up to 22 older people. Accommodation is provided over two floors. At the time of this inspection the service was providing accommodation to 20 people.

This inspection took place on 22nd May 2017 and was unannounced. A second day of inspection took place on 6 June 2017 and this was announced.

At the last inspection in December 2014, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Staff understood the procedure they needed to follow if they suspected abuse might be taking place. Risks to people were identified and plans were put in place to help manage the risk and minimise them occurring. Medicines were managed safely with an effective system in place. Staff competencies, around administering medication, were regularly checked.

There was sufficient staff on duty. On the day of inspection there was one senior and three care workers to support 20 people. The registered manager was also at the service but was not included in staffing number. Staff had time to provide one to one support and respond to people in a timely manner.

People were supported by a regular team of staff who were knowledgeable about their likes, dislikes and preferences. Most staff had completed up to date training although we did identify some staff who had not completed training in safeguarding and the Mental Capacity Act. Supervision sessions had been delivered by the registered manager to cover shortfalls in such training.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Staff supported people to maintain their health and attend routine health care appointments and people were able to choose meals of their choice.

We found the provider had continued to provide a highly responsive service. People were actively involved in the development of their care plans and the areas that mattered to each individual the most. People worked with staff to develop specific instructions to guide staff on how they wished for the support to be delivered. Care plans were reviewed on a regular basis to ensure they contained up to date information that was meeting people’s care needs.

The emphasis was upon meaningful engagement which enhanced quality of life and helped people feel worthwhile and fulfilled. Each person had identified areas of interest within their care plan and was supported to pursue these.

People who used the service had access to a wide range of activities and leisure opportunities. They were encouraged to continue to participate in activities and hobbies that they had enjoyed prior to admission to the service.

The service had a clear process for handling complaints which the registered manager had followed.

Staff told us they enjoyed working at the service and felt supported by the registered manager. Quality assurance processes were in place and regularly carried out by the registered manager to monitor and improve the quality of the service.

The service worked with various health and social care agencies and sought professional advice to ensure individual needs were being met.

Feedback was sought from people who used the service through regular ‘resident meetings’ and feedback forms. This information was analysed and action plans produced when needed.

Further information is in the detailed findings below:

Inspection carried out on 15th December 2014

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 15 December 2014 and was unannounced.

Alba Rose is registered to provide residential care for up to 20 older people. There is a passenger lift to assist people to the upper floor and the home is set in spacious and pleasant grounds.

The home had a registered manager in place. 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.

People told us they felt safe at the home. Risks to people were managed well without placing undue restrictions upon them. Staff were trained in safeguarding and understood how to recognise and report any abuse. Staffing levels were appropriate which meant people were supported with their care and to pursue interests of their choice. People received the right medicines at the right time and medicines were handled safely.

People told us that staff understood their individual care needs. We found that people were supported by staff who were well trained. All staff received mandatory training in addition to specific training they may need. The home had strong links with specialists and professional advisors and we saw evidence that the home was proactive in seeking their advice and acting on this.

People’s nutritional needs were met and they received the health care support they required.

People were enabled to make choices about their meals and snacks and their preferences around food and drink were respected. Meal times were a friendly and sociable time.

The home was clear about its responsibilities around the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and was innovative in its approach to supporting people to make informed decisions about their care.

Staff had developed positive, respectful relationships with people and were kind and caring in their approach. People were given choices in their daily routines and their privacy and dignity was respected. People were supported and empowered to be as independent as possible in all aspects of their lives. Staff anticipated people’s care needs and attended to people quickly, politely and with warmth.

People had informed staff about the areas of their care they considered most important and these were written down in a plan for staff to follow. People told us that staff concentrated on what was most important to them and made sure that they received the care they needed and preferred.

People were assisted to take part in activities and daily occupations which they found both meaningful and fulfilling. People told us that they appreciated how staff had thought of ways to make sure they could continue with daily routines they enjoyed. The home made a particular effort to make sure that those people whose voices were not always easily heard were consulted and that their views were acted on.

People were very well cared for in their final days. Families had made comments about the good quality care and support they and their loved ones had received at this difficult time.

People were encouraged to complain or raise concerns, the home supported them to do this and concerns were resolved quickly. The home used lessons learned to improve the quality of care.

There was strong leadership which promoted an open culture and which put people at the heart of the service. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities which helped the home to run smoothly. People and staff were actively involved in developing the service. Communication at all levels was clear and encouraged mutual respect. The provider understood the home’s strengths, where improvements were needed and had plans in place to achieve these with timescales in place.

Systems were in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service and the focus was on continuous improvement.

Inspection carried out on 2 July 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with several people who used the service. They told us that the staff always involved them with their care plan. Each person had a named worker and they worked with them to ensure the support they received was appropriate. One person said "I am very pleased with the level and quality of the care provided and particularly the range of activities". Another person indicated "I feel we are well looked after here" and "the staff are pleasant and approachable".

Staff told us that they could discuss any concerns openly at supervisions and meetings, and they were given support by the management team. We were given a copy of the supervision schedule for the service. There was evidence of supervision taking place six times a year, covering subjects such as care, infection control and medication and were evaluated to identify training needs.

Staff told us they were supported to ensure they kept their skills up to date through regular training.

The home was found to be clean and there were audits in place to ensure staff kept up to date with all the cleaning tasks identified.

We saw evidence to show that staff had received training in the safeguarding of vulnerable adults. Employment checks had been carried out to ensure they were suitable to work with vulnerable people.

We saw evidence that the provider and manager regularly audit the work carried out by staff. This ensured people received the care and support they required.

Inspection carried out on 18 December 2012

During a routine inspection

People who used the service told us the staff always asked them what they want to do. They said that staff were always polite and treated them with respect. People told us that they were supported to make their own decisions. Everyone had a care plan so that staff knew how to provide appropriate support.

People who used the service were provided with a four week menu in their rooms. Staff told us the menus were chosen by people who used the service and there was a choice at all the meals.

People received their medication in line with their care plan and staff had received training in the ‘safe handling of medication’.

We saw that the organisation had recruitment and induction policies for staff and that checks had been made to keep people who use the service safe.

People who lived at the home told us that staff did their best to help them resolve any concerns or complaints. Two people told us, “I have never had any complaints but I could speak to any of the staff if I had”.

Inspection carried out on 27 September 2011

During a routine inspection

People told us that they were consulted about their care, treatment and the support options which were available to them. They said that they were asked for their views so they felt they were central in making decisions about their care. One person said ‘I have read my care plans and risk assessments and I have signed to say I agree with them’. Another person said ‘l feel my rights are respected at all times’.

The people we spoke with on our visit told us that they always received the help and support they needed. They confirmed that they were encouraged to maintain their independence. One person said ‘The staff know what I need to be helped with. They are very good’. Another person said ‘This is a good place to live. I choose what I want to do. The staff encourage me to maintain my independence. They help me with the things I cannot do for myself’.

People told us that they knew how to raise concerns and said they knew issues raised would be sorted out straight away. One person said ‘I feel protected living here’. Another person said ‘I have never had any concerns to raise at all. The staff are wonderful. I feel safe here’.

The people we spoke with told us that there were enough staff to meet their needs. One person said ‘There is a stable team of staff who work for the proprietor. They all look after us very well’. We get looked after by staff whom we have got to know well. It is like being looked after by my own family’. Another person said ‘I feel the staff have the skills they need to care for me’.

People we spoke with confirmed that the proprietor asked them regularly if everything was alright for them. One person said ‘The proprietor and staff work hard to make sure the service runs smoothly. I would not want to live anywhere else’. Another person said ‘The quality of the service is very good. We are treated as part of a large family. We are asked for our opinions which are taken into account’.

Reports under our old system of regulation (including those from before CQC was created)