Albert House

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 remained. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 75 (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 always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Staff took time to support people at their own pace and did not rush care. Staff sat alongside people when providing support with eating and drinking, explained what food was being offered and kept people informed about what was happening throughout the day. Staff were attentive to people's comfort, well-being and appearance, including responding promptly when people required reassurance or support.

Relatives spoke positively about the kindness and compassion shown by staff. One relative told us, "We are very happy with the care [our family member] receives at Albert House. The staff are friendly and capable and always seem to treat [them] with care and respect." Another relative said, "[Relative] always seems happy and at ease with the team. I think this is the best way of judging how he is treated."

A calm, caring and respectful culture was evident throughout the service. During the assessment, one agency staff member did not consistently demonstrate the same reassuring and person-centred approach observed from permanent staff when supporting a person with their lunch. However, another staff member promptly challenged language which was not consistent with the provider's values and reinforced a respectful approach to care. Leaders were receptive to the concerns raised and responded appropriately too. Despite this isolated observation, most interactions observed were kind, respectful and responsive to people's individual needs.

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people's individual needs, preferences, interests and routines. They used information gathered from people, relatives and those who knew them well to personalise support. People's cultural, religious, sensory and communication needs were recognised and respected.

Observations demonstrated activities and interactions were tailored to what was important to each person. Staff recognised people's individual interests, sensory preferences, communication styles and important relationships, and used this information to adapt support in ways that promoted engagement, comfort and enjoyment. They were also able to speak knowledgeably about important relationships and significant events in people's lives.

Relatives spoke positively about this approach and described staff recognising people's individual strengths, preferences and support needs. People’s care and support reflected what mattered to them.

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and well-being.

Staff supported people to make choices and used positive encouragement to promote confidence and independence. Staff encouraged people to participate in everyday activities, including applying sun cream, holding drinks, mobilising short distances and transferring between chairs. People were praised for their efforts and supported to do as much as possible for themselves where this was safe and appropriate.

Relatives described staff supporting people to make choices and maintain control over aspects of their lives. We saw how staff respected people's decisions, including when they chose not to participate in an activity or declined support.

Records relating to independence goals and community participation did not always clearly demonstrate how progress was monitored or how identified opportunities were consistently implemented in practice. Observations also varied in the extent to which people were encouraged to participate in eating, drinking and other everyday activities.

The provider acted during the assessment period to strengthen planning around independence and participation, although some of this work was still being embedded at the time of the assessment. Despite this, there was evidence that people were encouraged to make choices, maintain existing skills and participate as independently as possible within the limits of their assessed needs.

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff demonstrated a detailed understanding of people's non-verbal communication and responded promptly to their needs. They recognised individual signs of discomfort, distress and unmet need and adapted their support accordingly. Support was personalised and based on staff knowledge of what worked best for each person.

Staff responded quickly when people communicated through vocal sounds, body language and facial expressions. For example, staff recognised when people wanted a change of environment, reassurance or additional support and responded in ways that reduced distress and promoted comfort. Staff were also able to adapt their approach when a person was reluctant to participate in personal care, using techniques known to work well for that individual.

Staff remained attentive throughout our visits and regularly checked people's comfort, well-being and support needs. Observations demonstrated that people received responsive support from staff who knew them well and understood how they communicated their wishes and preferences.

The provider cared about and promoted the well-being of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff described feeling supported, listened to and valued by leaders. They felt able to speak up, share ideas and seek advice when required and spoke positively about the support they received from managers and colleagues. Observations demonstrated positive teamwork, with staff working together to share knowledge, solve problems and support people effectively.

Staff had access to training, supervision and well-being support. The provider was also developing opportunities for staff development and career progression. For example, leaders described plans to introduce a development programme to support succession planning and help staff progress within the organisation.

Staff appeared comfortable approaching leaders and seeking guidance when required. They consistently told us they felt supported by managers and able to contribute ideas about how the service could improve.