Albert Residential Home

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 assessment 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 72 (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 proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

Accidents and incidents were recorded by the registered manager and where incidents had taken place, such as in relation to seizures, information was analysed to look at ways to improve the service. The registered manager understood their role in reporting incidents and accidents and looking at ways to reduce the risk of them happening again. There was an improvement plan in place with a timeline for completion and we could see the progress which had been made.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

The registered manager had put procedures in place to ensure people’s transition to and from other services was well-managed, including by involving people, their families, and relevant healthcare professionals. Staff worked with healthcare partners to look at ways to support a person who regularly engaged with healthcare partners due to their health needs. We saw in care records that staff worked with people to ensure there was continuity of care. For example, people had a ‘hospital passport’ which included details on people’s preferences of people involved in care. There was a business continuity plan in place to ensure there was consistency in the event of an emergency.

The provider 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. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

People told us they felt safe living in the service and that staff treated them with respect. People told us they were supported by staff in an environment that respected their rights. One person told us, “Yeah, I feel safe.” Another person commented, “The carers respect me.”

Staff had completed training for safeguarding and whistleblowing. They told us they knew how to recognise potential signs of abuse and how to report these internally and externally. One member of staff told us, “You can find maybe swelling or bruises or redness on the skin. I would go to find my manager and tell him about it. I could go to social care if my manager is involved.”

The registered manager understood their responsibility to ensure people’s rights were safeguarded. All people living in the service were able to make all decisions relating to their day-to-day care. Where the provider had restrictions in place in the past relating to the environment, they reviewed these regularly and ensured people were able to take positive risks so they could maintain their independence.

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.

People told us risks in relation to their care were managed by staff and they were involved in all decisions. One person told us in relation to managing the risk of falls when showering, “I always go with a carer [to have a shower]. I never lock my door.”

Staff understood risks in relation to people’s care and how to reduce these. Staff knew people’s needs well and took the time to understand and reduce risks, such as falls and pressure sores. One member of staff told us, “I have my phone with me [when going outside with people] in case I have to call 999 in case of any emergency.”

People’s care records included information for staff on how to manage risks, such as recognising triggers which may contribute to people becoming distressed and reducing the risk of falls. We observed staff following these during the assessment.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

The registered manager undertook regular checks of the environment, such as in relation to gas appliances and fire safety checks, and they worked with partners to assess the premises. Where external environmental checks identified areas for improvement, we saw the progress of recommended work and there was an action plan in place.

Staff understood their responsibility to ensure people lived in a safe environment. One member of staff told us, “Always make sure whenever I’m mopping, I notify the residents, and I put the sign, so they don’t slip. When I see any obstruction, I make sure that I take it and clear the way.”

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, 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.

People told us there were sufficient staff to meet their needs and that they did not need to wait for support. One person told us, “They have enough staff here.”

Staff told us there were enough of them to meet people’s needs consistently. Records showed that staff had received supervisions. Supervisions were dialogues between staff and the registered manager where staff were able to discuss leadership opportunities, performance and training needs.

Staff were recruited safely to the service. This included requesting and receiving references from previous employers, right-to-work documentation and Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks. DBS checks are carried out to confirm whether prospective new staff had a criminal record or were barred from working with people at the time.

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.

People told us staff regularly cleaned their room and the communal areas. One person told us, “They clean my room every day.” Whilst the environment appeared dated in parts, there were systems in place to ensure daily cleaning tasks were undertaken.”

Staff told us they had sufficient personal protective equipment to undertake cleaning and personal care tasks, and we observed staff appropriately following infection prevention and control procedures.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs,capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changeshappened.

Medicines were recorded in medicine administration records (MARs) which were kept updated. MARs included a recent photograph of the person and protocols for ‘when required’ (PRN) medicines. Where one person’s MAR did not include all of their allergies across all records, the registered manager updated this immediately and ensured this was added to the existing auditing systems to be checked in future. Whilst this was addressed when we identified this, there was a risk treatment could be delayed due to incomplete information.

Staff had received training and competency checks for medicines, and medicines were stored safely. There were systems in place to keep medicines locked and storage temperatures were monitored by staff.

People told us they received their medicines as prescribed and they were able to choose to administer their own medicines if they wished to. Staff understood people’s abilities well and empowered them to manage as many aspects of their medicines as they wished. One person told us, “The staff give it to me. I’m not monitored. I take it myself. I like it. I can say I’d take them and I would [self-administer]. They’re just here in case something happens.”