Albert Residential Home

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 last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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’s care plans were personalised and showed people were involved in their care. Care plans included people’s wishes, preferences and needs. Where a person’s care plan stated that they preferred to undertake some tasks over others, we saw this was taking place and staff proactively ensured the person’s choices were respected.

The registered manager used an electronic care planning system, and this had improved the quality of the records. The registered manager explained to us this meant records were easily accessible when necessary and it was clear where people had been involved in decisions relating to their care.

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

Staff worked well with professionals who were involved in people’s care. They understood their local community and how to support people to be involved. Staff encouraged people to engage with their local community but respected their wished where they chose not to.

There was a consistent staff team, and the service did not use agency staff. This meant that people were supported by staff who knew them well and there was continuity of care. Whilst people were independent with the majority of tasks relating to their care, the staff team supported them effectively where they needed support.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Whilst all people living in the service were able to access standard formats of information, there were systems in place to provide documentation in various formats, such as large print and braille. The registered manager told us they were easily able to produce appropriate documentation, including policies and procedures, if people’s needs changed.

The registered manager understood their responsibility in relation to the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). The AIS sets out how providers and commissioners of NHS and publicly funded adult social care services should ensure disabled people and people with impairments or sensory loss.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

People felt listened to and were able to feed back on the care they received, and staff involved them in decision about their care. They were aware of the complaints procedure and how to raise these with the service or externally. One person told us, “They listen to me.”

The registered manager undertook regular feedback surveys to hear people’s views. We saw action had been taken in response to surveys. For example, where a survey identified that one relative did not have access to complaints procedure, the registered manager provided them with this. We also saw that healthcare professionals were encouraged to fill in questionnaires about their experience in the service. Whilst there had been no recent complaints received by the registered manager, there was a complaints procedure in place and there were systems in place on how to respond to complaints.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People were supported to access services when they needed it. The premises and equipment were suitable for people’s needs and the provider worked well with partners to provide further support where necessary and make adjustments to the environment. People were provided with support to ensure they had equal access to care and treatment.

Staff understood their responsibility to be aware of discrimination and inequality that could have an impact on people accessing care and support. A member of staff told us, “Everyone should be included in their activities and in their care plan they should be included. They’re able to make decisions for their care.”

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

People told us they felt listened to and that they lived in an environment that treated them in line with their rights to live free from inequality. The registered manager understood legal equality and human rights requirements, including prevention of discrimination, understanding protected characteristics and understanding how reasonable adjustments support equity in experience and outcomes.

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.

People’s care plans included information on their wishes for the care at the end of their lives where people wished to discuss this. It was clearly recorded where people had not wished to discuss these, and their wishes were respected. Where a person had made decisions about their future, this was clearly recorded in their care plans to ensure staff followed this.