Archived: Albion Lodge Retirement Home

Is the service caring?

Is the service responsive?

Is the service safe?

Is the service effective?

Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, discussions with six people using the service, one of their relatives, three care staff supporting them and looking at four people's care records. We also spoke with a visiting district nurse and a physiotherapist. If you wish to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People who used the service told us that they felt safe. One person told us, "I feel very safe here". Safeguarding procedures were in place and staff understood their role in safeguarding the people they supported. Staff were aware of the provider's whistleblowing policy.

The provider ensured that people's rights, dignity and choice were protected by ensuring that they asked people's permission before supporting them with their care needs and involving them in their care plans. We found that people's preferences for receiving care were recorded and acted on.

Staff knew about risk management plans and we saw that they supported people in line with those plans.

The manager ensured that staff rotas were planned in advance to maintain the staffing numbers required to provide care in a safe way. Robust recruitment procedures were in place to ensure the good character and suitability of staff.

Systems were in place to make sure that the manager and staff learned from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints and checks made on the service. This reduced the risk to people and helped the service to continually improve.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care homes. While no applications have needed to be submitted, proper policies and procedures were in place. Relevant staff have been trained to understand when an application should be made and how to submit one.

Is the service effective?

People's care needs were assessed with them. All of the people we spoke with told us they were involved in their care planning and reviews of care. We saw that care plans were regularly reviewed and updated.

Where people had complex needs that required the input of specialist health care services, assessments had been made by the appropriate professionals. Their recommendations were carried out by the staff. This meant the provider worked well with other services to ensure people's health care needs were met.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by care staff that were kind and caring. We saw that care staff gave people encouragement and respected their privacy and dignity. One person told us, "The staff are excellent, they can't do enough for you".

People's preferences, interests and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support was provided in accordance with people's wishes.

Is the service responsive?

People had the opportunity to plan and engage in a range of different activities each day.

People were aware of the provider's complaints procedure and knew how to raise concerns. One person told us, 'They will always listen to you and make every effort to meet requests'.

Where care staff had noticed people's changing needs, their care plans were updated to reflect this.

Is the service well led?

The service had quality assurance and risk management systems in place. The provider sought the views of people who used the service. Records seen by us indicated that shortfalls in the service were addressed promptly.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities and understood the quality assurance and risk management systems. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality of care. Staff told us the home was well organised and they felt supported by their manager.

People told us that they felt involved in any decisions that needed to be made about their care and these were made in their best interests. We found that proper steps had been taken to ensure that individualised care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare.

We found that medicines were managed safely and that they were prescribed and given to people appropriately.

Staff had not been recruited in an appropriate way. We found that thorough checks had not been undertaken before staff started work at the home to ensure they were suitable to care for vulnerable people.

We found that any comments and complaints people made had been responded to appropriately and ensured that people were listened to.

We found that improvements had been made in all of these areas. We spoke with five people who used the service and one relative. People we spoke with were complimentary about the care and support that they received. Care support plans had been reviewed and updated and provided more detail about people's individual needs.

A new induction programme was in use. The provider had put in place a training policy that stated what training was mandatory for all staff. A time table of training for 2013 was in place. We found that staff received the training and support needed to ensure people received appropriate care.

Systems of audit were now in use to enable the provider to monitor the quality of the service provided.