Albury House

Updated 12 February 2025

Date of assessment 26 February 2025 – 13 May 2025.

Albury House is a small family run care home which provides accommodation and personal care for up to 12 older people, some of whom were living with a dementia. Not everyone who lived at the home received personal care. CQC only inspects when people live at the home and receive personal care. At the time of the assessment, 11 people were living at the home; however, only 8 people received personal care and therefore came under the CQC regulated service.

We carried out the assessment because we received concerns about people’s care, staff support at night and the management of the home. There was 1 staff member on duty overnight. They were supported, if required, by the registered manager who lived on site in a separate flat. We did not find any evidence of these concerns or that people had been placed at risk of harm. We also carried out the assessment to check the provider had met the requirements of the warning notice which we issued at our previous inspection in relation to the management of the home. We checked they had also followed their action plan in relation to the breaches of the regulations relating to consent and staff recruitment.

At this assessment, we found that the provider had complied with legal requirements and had taken action to improve their rating to good.

The home had 2 registered managers. 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.

Systems were in place to safeguard people from abuse. There were no ongoing safeguarding investigations. This was confirmed by the local authority. People told us they felt safe. Staff were knowledgeable about what action they would take if abuse were suspected.

Systems were in place to monitor and assess risks. Electronic risk assessments were completed to document all areas of risk such as moving and handling and falls. We did not observe any unsafe practices during our visits to the home.

The provider valued their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for staff who worked for them. Staff gave positive feedback about working at the home. Most of the staff had worked there for a long time and staff turnover was low.

Updated 12 February 2025

People spoke positively about living at the home and the care and support they received. A person told us, “I like everything about being here. The meals are good, the carers are all good. I love my little room. Oh yes, there are enough staff, I have a little buzzer; I just give them a ring and they are here. We have enough carers and they are quick to help.”

There was a stable staff team and most of the staff had worked at the home for many years. This was confirmed by relatives. A relative told us, “It’s smaller and more personal than the bigger homes, there’s no turnover of staff - we see the same faces. They are stable and consistent.”

There were sufficient staff on duty, both during the day and at night. Due to the concerns we received prior to our assessment regarding staff support and the care people received at night, we carried out an unannounced visit at night. We did not observe any concerns during our visit. Staff and relatives provided positive feedback about the home and the care provided. A relative told us, “We come and visit when we want and maximise our time by being supported to stay late as we are not close. We have just watched the football with [Person].” Another relative told us, “The night staff my relative adores. They've made a big impression.” A night staff member told us “1 staff member is definitely enough at night. I also do the cleaning. Most people are not getting up during the night so it is very quiet. Some people might buzz for the toilet, but I am able to assist with this as people are quite independent.”

Staff treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. We observed positive interactions between people and staff. People and relatives spoke highly of the caring nature of staff. Comments included, “The care she gets is amazing. She responds well to the care staff at Albury House - they are very caring,” and “I feel it's her home there and the girls are her family now.”

Staff cared for people as individuals. Relatives told us because of the size of the home, staff knew people well and provided person centred care. Comments included, “It’s a small home and there is a good ratio of staff to residents. They treat them individually” and “They know [Person] well, they know him better than us now. Talking to staff, we know they know him.”

People’s nutritional needs were met. There was an emphasis on home baking. People spoke positively about the meals at the home. Comments included, “Lunch was lovely, it was superb” and “The meals are exceptional.”

Staff supported people to access health and social care services to ensure people received joined up care which met their needs. This was confirmed by relatives. A relative told us, “I feel if there is anything that I need to be aware of, they make me aware and make sure it’s referred to a doctor.”

People and relatives said the home was well managed and communication was good. A relative said, “Communication is great, we liaise closely with [registered manager]. He always responds promptly when I send an email. I can contact them any time of day.”