You are here

Albany Lodge Nursing Home Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 29 March 2019

About the service:

• Albany Lodge Nursing Home is a residential care home that provides accommodation, nursing and personal care to up to 100 older people in a purpose-built building over five floors. At the time of the inspection 98 people were using the service, several of whom were living with dementia.

People’s experience of using this service:

• People felt safe using the service. There were systems in place to protect people from abuse and harm. Risks were appropriately assessed and managed. Staff made sure equipment people needed was safe to use.

• People were protected from the risk of infection because staff followed appropriate guidance.

• Medicines were managed safely.

• The provider responded appropriately to accidents and incidents to prevent them from happening again where possible.

• There were enough staff to care for people safely. There were robust recruitment procedures to avoid unsuitable staff being recruited.

• People’s needs were assessed and, where appropriate, other agencies were involved in assessments and care planning to ensure care was delivered in line with appropriate guidance.

• Staff had appropriate training and support to equip them with the skills and knowledge they needed.

• People had a choice of nutritious, good quality food. People had enough to eat and drink and received support to use healthcare services when they needed to.

• The environment was adapted to meet people’s needs. The home was spacious, wheelchair accessible and pleasantly decorated.

• Staff obtained people’s consent before providing care to them. Where people did not have the capacity to consent, the provider followed appropriate legal processes to ensure decisions about people’s care were made in their best interests, including where decisions were made to deprive people of their liberty as part of the care they received.

• People were involved and enabled to make choices about their care. Staff knew how to communicate information to people so they understood it, including people who did not speak English and people with sensory or cognitive impairments.

• Staff spoke to people in a friendly and respectful way so that people felt comfortable and valued. Staff took time to get to know people well.

• People received care and support from staff who had a good understanding of how to respect and promote their privacy and dignity.

• Staff gave people enough time, encouragement and support to enable them to do as much for themselves as possible.

• People had person-centred care plans that they and their relatives were involved in developing. The care plans contained detailed information about people’s needs, preferences, routines and interests.

• Care plans took into account people’s diverse needs relating to, for example, religion or sexuality.

• The provider had improved the activities that were on offer since our last inspection. People now had more opportunities to engage in individual activities if they did not want to take part in group activities.

• Staff made sure people’s social needs were met, particularly if they did not have relatives visiting them regularly.

• People had end of life care plans to ensure they received appropriate care in their last days.

• There was a robust complaints procedure. The registered manager dealt with concerns and complaints appropriately.

• The provider had clear values and made sure these were communicated to staff. The registered manager made an effort to get to know people and make sure people knew who they were.

• There were clear lines of accountability within the staff team and the registered manager took action where appropriate to ensure staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities.

• Records were generally kept to a high standard. However, we identified some minor concerns around the recording of people’s food and fluid intake and unnecessary paperwork in care files, which the registered manager told us they would address.

• People, relatives and staff had oppor

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 29 March 2019

The service was safe

Details are in our Safe findings below.

Effective

Good

Updated 29 March 2019

The service was effective

Details are in our Effective findings below.

Caring

Good

Updated 29 March 2019

The service was caring

Details are in our Caring findings below.

Responsive

Good

Updated 29 March 2019

The service was responsive

Details are in our Responsive findings below.

Well-led

Good

Updated 29 March 2019

The service was well-led

Details are in our Well-Led findings below.