Albemarle Hall Nursing Home

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

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 always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Staff interacted kindly with people, treating them with dignity and respect. A relative told us how, “Staff look after him. They make sure he is shaved and his hair is clean.” Staff were patient and cared about people’s wellbeing. Staff spoke warmly to us about the people they cared for. One staff member told us “[Person] is lovely. He’s our newest resident but he’s settling in really well.” This was also reflected in care records where we saw staff used dignified language to describe people’s support needs. Four staff members had been trained as dignity champions which outlined the homes commitment to the ‘Ten Dignity Do’s. These included having zero tolerance of all forms of abuse and supporting people with the same respect they would use for friends and family.

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

People were supported by staff who knew them well. Their care and support plans reflected their personal, social and cultural needs. For example, a relative told us “My [relative] was a farmer, so staff put these plastic farm animals in his room. I didn’t ask them to do any of this – they just found out what he liked and did it anyway. It’s really good.” People’s bedrooms reflected their individuality and were personalised.

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

People were offered choices around their food, drink and activities. We saw one person wanted to change their jumper and chose which one they wanted to wear. Staff supported them with this decision. People were supported to maintain relationships with family and friends. During our assessment, we observed a welcoming environment with many visitors present. Although the home operated a protected mealtime policy to ensure a calm dining experience, staff demonstrated flexibility by making exceptions when individuals wished to share a meal with their family.

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. We observed staff responding to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Two family members told us about how the home had responded quickly to the wishes of their relatives. For example, a relative stated that “[relative] loves their TV and without me saying anything they’ve moved it from its stand because they couldn’t see it easily where it was and have now mounted it on the wall.” We observed staff being present and engaging with people throughout the inspection and staff were able to respond quickly to people to minimise upset or distress.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff told us they felt supported. There was a structured programme of staff supervisions and appraisals which also allowed for development opportunities. Staff surveys were in place giving staff opportunities to provide feedback. The most recent staff survey results were positive. This feedback was used to drive improvement. We saw evidence of recent staff meetings taking place over several days to improve communication to all staff members.