Albury House

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our previous inspection, we rated this key question good. At this assessment, the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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 were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People and relatives spoke positively about the person-centred care which was provided. Comments included, “The staff know her well, most of the staff are the same ones from when she arrived” and “He gets lots of interaction with staff, gets on well with them.”

The provider understood the health and care needs of people and their local community, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The home was small and many of the staff had worked at the home for many years so they knew people well and could provide individualised care which met people’s needs. A relative told us, “The staff are really friendly and have plenty of time. They've taken time to get to know me also. We've got a good relationship with all the staff there.”

Since 2016 onwards all organisations that provide publicly funded adult social care are legally required to follow the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). The standard was introduced to make sure people are given information in a way they can understand. The standard applies to all people with a disability, impairment or sensory loss and in some circumstances to their carers.

The provider was meeting the AIS. People’s communication needs were recorded and the registered manager told us if anyone required information in a different format, then this would be provided.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas or raise complaints about their care and support.

There was a complaints process in place. None of the people or relatives raised any complaints with us during our assessment. A relative commented, “No complaints with the service. Communication is great and [Person] is very happy” and “We would feel absolutely comfortable raising concerns/complaints. We would sort any concerns directly with [name of registered manager]. He always makes time for us to chat. We have no concerns or complaints.”

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The registered manager told us however, that there had been an issue accessing dental services, because of the availability of dental practices in the local community.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care and support in response to this.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. We spoke with 1 relative who told us, “When [Person] was dying the communication with us was excellent.” They also said, “4 or 5 staff came to [Person’s funeral] which was a lovely gesture.”A health professional provided positive feedback about 1 person’s end of life care at the home. They told us, “The care they had was brilliant.”

The registered manager explained they had learned lessons after a person had died at the home without their end-of-life wishes being recorded. They told us they now always ensured people were asked about their preferences and wishes in relation to this important area to ensure these were known and followed by staff.