Albemarle Hall Nursing 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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 71 (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 were supported by staff who had a good understanding of people’s needs and preferences. Care plans contained detailed information on their health needs and personal preferences. We observed staff trying to offer as much choice as possible regarding food and drink as well as activities. Two family members praised how quickly staff at the home had identified their relatives needs and had adapted aspects of the environment and provided resources to make people’s lives as comfortable and fulfilling as possible. For example, one person had their room personalised based on their prior occupation.

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.

When it was appropriate relatives were involved in the development of care plans to ensure people’s needs and preferences were met.

Staff were knowledgeable about people and understood their health conditions so they could notice any changes immediately. Where changes in people’s needs were identified, referrals were made promptly and follow up actions were documented in care notes. Staff worked collaboratively with external professionals to ensure continuity of care and to support safe transitions.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Care plans detailed how people communicated, and we saw staff demonstrated an understanding of this in their support to people. The provider had attempted to provide accessible information however, this was not always up to date. For example, menus on the dining room tables did not reflect the food being served. This meant people were not able to make decisions based on the information presented to them potentially leading to confusion. People’s cultural needs were considered. For example, a person whose first language was not English had a connection with a member of staff who spoke the same language as them.

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.

There were regular resident and relative’s meetings, however we noted that they were mainly attended by relatives and staff. The provider has confirmed that people had the opportunity to be involved in meetings if they wanted to. The meetings were used to share information about forthcoming events, to share news, and to seek people’s ideas and feedback. Overall relatives we spoke to felt listened to. However, 2 relatives had given examples of when they felt registered managers had not listened to their concerns and actions had not been taken to address their worries. The provider also conducted a satisfaction survey for relatives. The most recent survey had positive comments such as ‘A lovely home where residents are treated as family by staff, visitors always made welcome. Could not wish for a better home for my [relative]’.

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

Care plans considered people’s needs and any adjustments that could be made to ensure they had equal access to services which included information about how their mobility and communication needs could be met. An example of this was a person that was cared for in bed still having access to a hairdresser.

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.

The service had a policy in place around equality and diversity. All staff had received equality and diversity training to help them understand equality and identify discrimination. People experienced fair and equitable care.

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 were supported to plan for their future. Future planning discussions had taken place and the outcomes documented in care plans. No one was receiving end of life care at the time of our inspection.