Albury House

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last inspection, we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people’s care was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. Electronic assessments were completed and care plans formulated to ensure people’s needs and preferences were identified and met.

Staff planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

We observed positive interactions between people and staff during our visits. People’s nutritional needs were met. There was an emphasis on home baking. A relative told us, “The lady [staff member] who does the cooking, will do additional little touches like putting marshmallows in her hot chocolate in the afternoon - nothing is too much trouble. If she won’t eat something, they'll try something else. I don’t have any concerns at all.”

Staff worked together well as a team. Healthcare professionals spoke positively about the care people received at the home. They told us staff contacted them if there were any concerns. A health professional told us, “We have a weekly review slot for the home where any issues can be discussed regarding the residents. I am always confident in the information being provided and any relevant concerns being raised appropriately and in a timely fashion.”

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control.

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 who told us, “[Relative] has had hearing and eye appointments. We make the appointments and they support him to attend. They always keep us updated with the appointments he has with the GP.”

The registered manager told us they had a good working relationship with the local GP practice. They also said the optician/audiologist visited and the district nurses were involved in people’s care. Community paramedics were also available if someone became very poorly.

Staff monitored people’s care to help ensure outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met the expectations of people themselves.

People and relatives spoke positively about the care provided. A relative told us, “The staff are great with my [Person]. She seems really happy here. Because it’s small, they get to know the residents really well and have an individual approach to her care.”

We read and heard examples of how being at the home had improved people’s wellbeing.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The MCA requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA. In care homes, and some hospitals, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA, and whether any conditions on authorisations to deprive a person of their liberty had the appropriate legal authority and were being met.

A DoLS application had been submitted to the local authority for authorisation, in line with legal requirements.