Alban House Residential Care 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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The provider was in breach of the legal regulation relating to people’s person-centred care.

This service scored 50 (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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People did not always receive personalised care and support specific to their needs and preferences. People’s care plans were inaccurate and had not been updated when their needs significantly changed.

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 activities and that interactions with staff were task focused.

We discussed our observations with the provider and management team. They explained one member of the management team was responsible for activities within the home and if not available due to annual leave, etc. it was the senior carers responsibility to ensure activities/one to one's took place. We explained our observations and clearly it was evident senior carers were not organising activities for people as part of their role and responsibilities.

However, 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."

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

There was some evidence of the service liaising with health and social care professionals on a regular basis and making onward referrals to specialist teams. For example, the GP and community nursing team. However, our assessment found this was not always the case, such as in relation to wound management. We found there was contradictory information in care plans and a lack of regular reviews to ensure people’s current care and support needs were being met appropriately.

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

People were not always supported to understand information through their preferred communication methods. Care records did not always contain clear communication plans explaining how people communicated. For example, how a person communicated pain.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

Limited surveys had been completed by people using the service and relatives in July 2024. The surveys asked specific questions about the standard of the service and the support it gave people. It was not clear who completed the surveys. This meant it would be difficult to address a concern with the right person.

A system was in place to record complaints. Complaints were acknowledged and responded to in an appropriate time frame and other professionals informed and involved where appropriate.

However, the provider’s complaints policy and procedure was not current or in date to support best practice within the service.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

We found on occasions, staff had not made sure people accessed the care, support and treatment when they needed it. For example, regarding wound care management. In addition, we observed delays in staff responses to people’s requests for support during the first day of the inspection.

The provider explained the management team were working with staff on a daily basis to ensure people achieved equity of access to services for care and support which met their individual needs.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

Care reviews were out of date, which meant care plans and risk assessments did not always contain current and accurate details about people’s health and social care needs. This posed a risk of inappropriate care and support being provided to individuals, impacting on their experiences and outcomes.

However, the service worked with other health and social care professionals in line with people’s specific needs. There was evidence of the service acting on advice provided by professionals including GPs and other health professionals.

People were not always 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.

At times, there was confusing, and contradictory information regards to people’s resuscitation wishes contained within their care files, which posed a risk of inappropriate treatment being provided in the case of an emergency.

Only 5 out of 23 staff had received end of life care training. This meant most staff were not necessarily confident in providing kind and compassionate end of life care and support.

The management team said, in the event of providing end of life care, they worked closely with the community nursing team, GPs and family to ensure people’s needs and wishes were met in a timely way.