- Care home
Albert House
Assessment report published 23 September 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of assessment: 22 July 2026 to 25 August 2026.
Albert House is a residential care home providing accommodation and personal care for people with learning disabilities and physical disabilities. There were 7 people living at the service at the time of this assessment.
This assessment was undertaken following information of concern received by CQC relating to people's opportunities for meaningful activity and participation, communication with relatives and management oversight, and as part of our ongoing monitoring activity.
We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted.
People received safe and caring support from staff who understood their needs, preferences and routines. Risks to people's health and well-being were assessed and managed and staff worked effectively with healthcare professionals and other services to support continuity of care. Leaders and staff demonstrated a willingness to learn and improve and there was evidence of positive relationships between people and those supporting them.
However, records did not always demonstrate how people’s aspirations, independence and meaningful outcomes were consistently planned for, progressed and evaluated over time. Governance systems identified areas requiring improvement but did not always ensure changes were embedded, sustained and evidenced in practice. The provider had identified a number of these issues through its own governance processes and had already begun taking action during the assessment process to strengthen care planning, activity planning, independence goals and quality assurance processes.
People's experience of this service
Most feedback about the service was positive. Relatives told us people were treated with kindness, dignity and respect and described staff as caring, friendly and knowledgeable. One relative told us, "The staff all seem to treat each of the residents as individuals, with their own needs and strengths."
People living at the service were unable to verbally share their experiences with us. We therefore gathered evidence through extended observations across two unannounced visits, discussions with staff, feedback from relatives and review of care records.
Observations showed people were comfortable in the presence of staff and received personalised support from staff who understood their individual needs, preferences and communication styles. During our visits, staff recognised when one person appeared distressed due to the hot weather and supported them to sit near a fan, after which they quickly became calmer and more relaxed. Another person smiled and giggled whilst taking part in a musical activity tailored to their sensory preferences. Staff were also observed using approaches shared by family members to support a different person to participate in everyday activities and remain engaged. People were clean, well-presented and dressed appropriately for the weather.
People's cultural, religious, health and communication needs were recognised and respected. Reasonable adjustments were made to support people with disabilities and complex communication needs, and people were supported to maintain important relationships with family members and others who mattered to them.
Our assessment identified some opportunities to further improve people's quality of life, independence and participation. However, the provider recognised these areas and had begun taking action.