- Care home
Alban House Residential Care Home
Assessment report published 10 September 2025
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of assessment 30 June to 4 August 2025. We visited the service on 30 June and 1 and 4 July 2025. Alban House is a residential care home providing care and support to a maximum of 23 older people. At the time of our assessment there were 21 people living at the home.
The assessment was carried out as we had concerns in relation to: delays in seeking medical attention when people’s health had deteriorated; inappropriate care and support for certain health conditions; lack of access to medicines at night; and the leadership and management of the service.
We found there was a lack of awareness of risks associated with people’s support needs. Staff did not always identify and manage risks proactively and effectively to keep people safe. Information in risk assessments was contradictory and lacked detail.
The provider did not have good oversight of all aspects of the premises. The provider had failed to fully mitigate fire risks associated with the safety of the premises. Fire safety management did not fully protect people or others within the building, placing them at risk of harm. The décor of the premises looked tired with a general feel of wear, tear and a lack of investment. Infection control practices were not robust.
The provider did not always share concerns quickly and appropriately. During our assessment, we found a person was not receiving time sensitive medicines appropriately with regards to their health condition. As a result, we had to raise a safeguarding alert on 4 July 2025. This did not demonstrate a service which responded to safety concerns in a timely manner.
Quality assurance systems and provider level auditing had failed to identify important environmental risks and risks associated with infection prevention and control.
Systems and processes failed to highlight and address improvements needed for the administration and recording of medicines and did not follow national guidelines for safe medicine practice.
People’s care and support plans were not always personalised, holistic, strengths-based or reflected their needs and aspirations, including their physical and mental health needs. People’s specific nutrition and hydration needs were not always met in line with current guidance.
People did not always receive personalised care and support specific to their needs and preferences. There was a lack of meaningful activity to aid people’s overall well-being. Throughout our site visits, we observed people engaged in very little meaningful interactions and activities with staff.
The service was not always working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) MCA. There was confusing and contradictory information about people’s end of life preferences regards to resuscitation. Staff were not attentive to people's needs and undignified terminology was used by staff about people.
Staffing numbers on each shift were based on the needs of each person. However, staff were not always deployed effectively, and this meant some people were left with no social interaction for long periods of time.
Accurate, complete and contemporaneous records in respect of each person’s care needs had not been maintained. Policies and procedures were not current or in date to support best practice within the service. Lessons were not always learned to continually identify and embed good practice.
The provider had failed to establish and operate effective systems and processes to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service. Governance systems were ineffective had not identified the areas requiring improvement.
We found 6 breaches in regulations in relation to safe care and treatment, the need for consent, person-centred care, dignity and respect, staffing and good governance.
We served warning notices on 18 July 2025 which gave a timescale to address breaches of regulations linked to safe care and treatment and good governance. The provider did not make representations against the warning notices. We have also asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment in relation to the need for consent, person-centred care, dignity and respect and staffing.
This service has been placed in special measures. The purpose of special measures is to ensure that services providing inadequate care make significant improvements. Special measures provide a framework within which we use our enforcement powers in response to inadequate care and provide a timeframe within which providers must improve the quality of the care they provide.
People's experience of this service
Staff did not respond promptly to people’s requests for support. The lunchtime experience was poor and there was a lack of activities for people to engage with.
People confirmed they felt safe with the staff that supported them and were able to raise any concerns. We received feedback from 8 people living at the service and 3 relatives. People and their relatives commented, “Yes, they look after me well. I feel safe, they check on me regularly”, “I feel safe and looked after” and “Staff very friendly and polite, if we ask anything they tell us.”
People told us staff were responsive when they requested assistance. People commented, "There're wonderful staff, they’re gorgeous staff, they're very helpful" and “The staff are lovely here. They work so hard. We are one big crazy family. I have been here 3 years, and it is lovely. Staff give you lots of love and encouragement.” Some people told us about their positive experience of activities. Comments included, “We do all sorts, I'm dyslexic and have learning difficulties they help with word searches” and “We do activities everyday - all sorts."