Alban House Residential Care 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 changed to requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

The provider was in breach of the legal regulation relating to people’s dignity and respect.

This service scored 45 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff did not treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity.

At lunchtime on 30 June 2025, we observed a member of staff come out of the kitchen talking about a job which they had found on their personal mobile phone. Another member of staff, who was supporting people to eat at the time, got up, left the people halfway through their meal and went to look at the job advertisement. This did not demonstrate kind, compassionate and dignified care and support.

Staff were not attentive to people's needs. The mealtime experience was rushed, disorganised and not a positive experience for people. We reviewed a sample of ‘mealtime experience’ staff competencies/observations forms. One completed document stated, 'Mealtime is too quick.' Also, when it came to how staff interact (with people), it stated, 'they don't, except when ‘feeding’ residents.' The provider had failed to take timely action in response to these observations to ensure people’s dignity was respected. The document also asked the staff member to say what should stop, they had answered, 'staff on their phones during service.' Staff were observed using their personal phones during the lunch service during the inspection.

Undignified terminology was used by staff about people on occasions, such as a description of a mealtime.

We found in several rooms there were many packs of incontinence pads displayed in full view. For example, they were stacked in a bay window, between furniture and on top of wardrobes. This did not show evidence of privacy and dignity being respected, leading to poor outcomes for people.

We discussed our concerns with the provider. They provider explained the poor culture, poor terminology and lack of dignified care and support was being addressed during staff meetings and through changes to the management structure.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Throughout our visits we saw limited staff engagement with people which was meaningful. Care and support was task orientated, and staff did not respond promptly to people’s request for assistance.

Care plans contained limited information about people’s personal histories, which would help staff to provide appropriate, individualised care and support.

People were supported to maintain relationships and networks that were important to them, this included access to their friends and family. For example, care plans documented the importance of people seeing their family and friends.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

People were not always supported to develop their independent living skills or engage in activities of their choice. We observed long periods of time where people were left alone in communal areas and their bedrooms. For example, one person was seen to gradually fall asleep in their bedroom with their head resting on their table. Other people were seen to passively sit in the lounge with the television on loudly.

We raised this with the provider, who explained they were in the process of addressing the culture of the service through staff meetings, to ensure it provided people with person-centred care and support.

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

We observed periods where communal areas were left unsupervised. During the afternoon of 30 June 2025, one person was heard to say, "hello, it's my birthday next week". No-one responded and no staff were in the room to respond to this person. This example did not demonstrate staff being responsive to people’s individual needs.

People did tell us they got on well with their staff. 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.”

The provider did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care. However, they did care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff.

The provider had recognised they had work to do to instil a culture of care in which staff truly valued and promoted people’s individuality, protected their rights, and enabled them to develop and flourish. This was currently being addressed through changes to the management structure and staff meetings and supervisions.

Changes to the management structure had been recognised as one of the provider’s priorities on purchasing the home; to ensure clear leaders were visible within the service; were approachable and took a genuine interest in what people, staff, family, and other professionals had to say.