Albury House

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

At our last inspection, we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment, the rating has changed to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

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 had a positive culture of safety. Action had been taken following our previous inspection to improve. Accidents and incidents were recorded. There had only been 2 incidents within the past 12 months.

Staff told us they were aware of the actions to take if someone had an accident or incident. A staff member said, “There is an App on the phone and if someone falls it will alert everyone, and they would come and support. There is a hoist to help us get people off the floor. I have done my moving and handling training and have had years of experience in this area. I have never noticed poor practice with moving and handling and I have never noticed anyone using a drag lift I would report this.”

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. We received positive feedback from health care professionals about communication at the home. Assessments were carried out prior to people moving into the home and when they were there, to make sure people’s needs and preferences were identified and met.

Staff worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect.

Staff told us they would report any safeguarding concerns. A staff member said, “If I had concerns, I would raise them. I know about reporting concerns to the local authority and CQC but I have no concerns.”

No issues were raised from the local authority safeguarding team who stated, “From a safeguarding perspective we have not had any recent involvement and have no ongoing safeguarding enquiries for this service.”

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

During our visits to the home, we did not observe any poor practice. Staff followed best practice guidance to ensure people were safe.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. People and relatives spoke positively about the small, homely environment. A relative told us, “I like that it feels like a home from home and not a clinical environment.”

Checks and tests were carried out on equipment and the home’s utilities such as water and electric to make sure they were safe.

The provider made sure there were enough skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

There were sufficient staff on duty at the time of our assessment to meet people’s needs. We carried out unannounced day and nighttime visits and saw that people’s needs were met by the number of staff on duty. This was confirmed by relatives. A relative told us, “There is a good ratio of staff to residents. They treat them individually.”

There was a stable staff team and most of the staff had worked at the home for many years. A relative told us, “The staff know her well, most of the staff are the same ones from when she arrived.”

Staff were supported to undertake training to meet the needs of people who lived at the home. People and relatives spoke positively about the knowledge and skills of staff. A person said, “It’s a good care home, in fact it is just like living at home. Everything is good for me. I have no complaints about the place at all. The meals are exceptional. All the carers seem to know what they are doing.”

The registered manager told us more face to face training was going to be organised instead of online training, which he said was more beneficial to the learning style of staff.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

The home was clean. Staff told us they had access to and used PPE to reduce the risk of cross infection. Relatives spoke positively about the cleanliness of the environment. A relative told us, “Everything looks immaculate.” A local NHS infection control practitioner told us, “I have just recently been to deliver IPC training and I had no concerns to note.”

The provider made sure that medicines were managed safely. The storage of medicines had improved following our previous inspection. Records evidenced that medicines were administered as prescribed.