We carried out a review of the data available to us about Albion House on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Albion House, you can give feedback on this service.
Albion House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The service provides care for up to 24 people. There were 18 people using the service when we visited.
The service had a registered manager, which 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.
Risk assessments and care plans contained information about risks to people’s care and contained clear risk management guidelines for care staff to follow.
Staff followed safe practices for administering, storing and recording medicines given to people.
People told us care staff were kind and treated them with respect. Care staff were aware of people’s personal histories and had a good understanding of people’s personal preferences in relation to how they wanted their care delivered.
Care workers supported people to develop their independent living skills and encouraged them to maintain their personal and family relationships in accordance with their wishes.
People were supported to access activities they enjoyed. Care records included information about activities people attended and whether they enjoyed these.
People were supported with their nutritional needs. The service had a chef who prepared nutritious meals in accordance with people’s preferences and where people had specialist dietary needs, this was accommodated.
People received support with their healthcare needs. Care records included up to date information about people’s health conditions as well as the details of any treatment they were receiving. Care workers had a good level of knowledge about people’s requirements in relation to their health.
Care staff had received training in safeguarding adults from abuse and were aware of their responsibilities. People told us they felt safe using the service and there was an appropriate policy and procedure in place.
Staff were aware of their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). People’s capacity was assessed where necessary and care staff were aware of their responsibility to ensure care was delivered in accordance with people’s valid consent.
People told us they were involved in decisions about their care and how their needs were met.
The provider practiced safer recruitment procedures. Appropriate background checks were undertaken of prospective staff before they worked at the service.
The provider had an appropriate complaints procedure and process in place.
Care staff had the appropriate skills to deliver care as they had received an effective induction, ongoing training and management support through supervisions and appraisals. Care was delivered in line with current legislation and standards. There were appropriate policies and procedures in place which were appropriately communicated to care staff.
Quality assurance processes were thorough. The registered manager completed a variety of audits and ensured learning was undertaken from these.
This unannounced inspection took place on 19 January 2016. Albion House provides personal care and accommodation for up to twenty four people with mental health needs. Twenty people were using the service at the time of the inspection. The previous inspection of the service took place on 20 July 2014. It met all the regulations we checked at that time.
The service has a registered manager. 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.
People told us they felt safe at Albion House. Staff had fully assessed risks to people and had up to date information about how to support them safely. Healthcare professionals told us people received safe and appropriate support with their mental health needs. Staff supported people to receive their medicines safely as prescribed. There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs.
Staff had relevant skills and experience to undertake their role. Staff received relevant training and felt supported in their work. Staff understood people’s needs and respected their views. People received care and support as planned. People gave consent to their care.
People told us staff were kind and treated them with respect. Staff were respectful of people’s dignity and privacy.
People told us they enjoyed the nutritious food which met their dietary needs and personal preferences. People received effective support in relation to their mental health and physical needs.
People told us staff responded to any concerns they raised. The service had responded to complaints appropriately. Staff took into account people’s views and experiences when they supported them.
The service carried out checks on the quality of the service. The registered manager asked people and staff for their views about the service. Staff recorded incidents and put plans in place to prevent a recurrence. The registered manager worked in partnership with the community mental health team (CMHT) to deliver people’s care and support.
The detailed evidence supporting our summary can be read in our full report.
Is the service safe?
People who used the service, staff and visitors were protected against the risks of unsafe or unsuitable premises. The provider had taken steps to provide care in an environment which was suitably designed and adequately maintained. Maintenance issues were resolved quickly. The provider had a yearly budget where they identified the amounts of money needed to refurbish the different areas of the building.
Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. Risk assessments had been carried out for each person depending on their need for support in different areas. Plans were put in place to minimise risks. These included protocols for escalating concerns if strategies for managing people's unsafe behaviour, which arose because of the nature of their mental health condition, were not successful.
CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. The registered manager told us no one at the service had applications submitted under this system. Staff had received training in the operation of the DoLS in July 2014.
Is the service effective?
People's views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service provided and delivered care. Information about people's social background, which might influence their care and activity preferences, were collected during a pre-admission assessment.
People were cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard. This was because staff received appropriate professional development through the use of one to one supervision sessions and yearly appraisals. Staff were also enabled to attend regular training sessions.
We spoke with a care co-ordinator from the London borough of Lewisham who was visiting the service on the day of the inspection. They told us they had "no worries" about the care provided by the service.
Is the service caring?
Staff spoke with people with respect and patience. Staff interacted with people in a relaxed manner. The service employed a social inclusion worker who promoted people's independence and community involvement.
We spoke with people who used the service. They were satisfied with the care provided. One person told us, "It is quite homely and nice. The people are all friendly and the food is agreeable." Someone else said, "You can choose what to do and when. The staff are friendly."
Is the service responsive?
We examined how the service responded to complaints as well as what actions they took in response to any adverse incidents involving people who used the service. The service had not received any formal complaints since the last inspection. More general concerns were picked up by the service at monthly resident's meetings and through key working sessions. The service carried out investigations in relation to any incidents and put strategies in place to prevent incidents from occurring again.
Is the service well led?
The provider had effective systems to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received. This included obtaining feedback from people who used the service and staff. The service carried out audits, for example of safety of the premises, to ensure the service was safe and the care being provided was suitable.
At our inspection of 11 January 2014, as well as checking the action taken by the provider to address shortcomings in record keeping, we looked into anonymous information of concern drawn to our attention about the service's management of medication, recruitment practices and notification of incidents to the Care Quality Commission. We did not speak to people who used the service on this occasion as the focus of our inspection was on the quality and safety of services provided in these areas.
We found the provider had made improvements in record keeping and was now meeting the essential standards under regulation 20. The provider was also meeting the standard in relation to the other areas we inspected. There were appropriate arrangements in place for the management of medicines. There were effective recruitment and selection processes in place and people were cared for, or supported by, suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff. The provider notified the Care Quality Commission of incidents as required.
Up to date, individual support agreements were in place for people who used the service which addressed their care and support needs and protected them from risks.
The service worked in partnership with other providers to ensure people's health, safety and welfare needs were met.
People we spoke with said they felt safe and secure in the home. They told us that they could call staff at any time if they needed support and the manager was readily available if they wanted to see her.
Staff received appropriate induction, professional development, supervision and appraisal.
People were in most respects satisfied with the care and support provided by the service. However, we found that the arrangements for managing records did not protect people who used the service sufficiently against the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment arising from inaccurate and incomplete records about them and their treatment.
At the time of our inspection the provider did not have a registered manager in post.
People said that they felt safe with the staff. They told us that they could call staff at any time if they needed support. They said they never had any concerns about the way they were treated. They said that they could talk to staff and managers who would review and make changes to their care if they wanted it. One person said, 'I look at my care plan with the staff. If I disagree with anything I get them to change it.'
The service held regular residents' meetings where people were given the opportunity to put forward ideas about the running of the service and raise any concerns about the care they received.
Overall, the feedback we received from people who live at the home was positive about the way staff respected their rights, and encouraged them to get involved in the running of their home. They said that staff knew them well, and they were easy to talk to.
People told us there was a monthly meeting with the staff and manager where they could discuss any problems. They said that the staff respected their privacy. People said that the food was all right and that they were able to cook for themselves if they wanted to. They said they could come and go as they pleased, and that on the whole they were happy living there. Most said they felt it was a 'stepping-stone ', until they moved on to a place of their own. They said they knew about their care plan, and met with their care coordinator regularly. They said: 'The staff are ok and we are safe here', and all said they were happy with their rooms.
These comments were reflective of the overall views we heard from the people who lived at the home.