Albert House

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 Good. At this assessment the rating has remained. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 71 (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.

Staff demonstrated a detailed understanding of people's individual preferences, routines, interests, communication styles and support needs. Support was adapted to reflect people's sensory, cultural, religious and social needs and staff used this knowledge to personalise interactions and support.

However, person-centred approaches were not always fully reflected within care planning, activity records and goal progression. Activity records often described what activity had taken place but provided limited information about people's choices, engagement, preferences or the outcomes they achieved. Records did not consistently demonstrate how identified goals were reviewed and progressed over time, or how people were supported to maintain skills, develop independence and achieve personal outcomes.

Observations found staff were caring and attentive but opportunities to maximise independence, meaningful occupation and active participation were not always fully explored. Records often demonstrated that activities had taken place but were less clear about whether they had been chosen by the person, whether they enjoyed them or what had been achieved as a result.

During the assessment process, the provider recognised these opportunities and began strengthening activity planning, goal monitoring and therapeutic input. Whilst this demonstrated a willingness to improve, some of this work was still being embedded at the time of the assessment.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Staff worked with a range of health and social care professionals to support continuity of care. People were supported to access community services, including day opportunities and healthcare appointments, and information was shared between services to support safe and coordinated care.

Staff demonstrated an understanding of people's changing needs and sought appropriate professional support where required. For example, staff worked with healthcare professionals to support a person admitted on a discharge to assess pathway and coordinated care with community services, specialist professionals and relatives. People continued to access day services and community opportunities, with information and support arrangements shared between services to maintain continuity of care.

Relatives were involved in reviews and discussions about people's care where appropriate. During the assessment, staff demonstrated a joined-up approach to supporting people's health, well-being and ongoing care needs across different services and organisations.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Information about people's communication needs was available through communication passports, hospital passports and support planning documents.

Accessible information was available on a range of topics including safeguarding, complaints, medicines and person-centred care. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of how people communicated and adapted their approach accordingly.

Relatives told us they were informed when significant concerns or changes in health occurred. One relative told us, "If a health or other problem arises, we know that they will call us to keep us informed."

Some relatives told us they would welcome more regular updates about their family member's well-being and daily life. The provider responded positively to this feedback and developed proposals for family meetings and regular newsletters.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

People were supported to express preferences and be involved in decisions using communication methods appropriate to their needs. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people's individual communication styles and how to interpret non-verbal communication. Relatives were involved in important decisions about people's care and support where appropriate.

There were systems in place to capture feedback, concerns and complaints and respond to them. The service welcomed family involvement and there were no unnecessary restrictions on visiting. Records demonstrated that concerns raised by people connected to the service were investigated and acted upon, including feedback from relatives and members of the local community.

Surveys and involvement records often relied on staff interpretation and did not always demonstrate how feedback had been validated through family members, advocates or other people who knew the person well. Records did not always clearly show how people's views and preferences had influenced care planning, reviews or wider service development. Despite this, observations demonstrated staff knew people well, understood how they communicated and actively involved them in day-to-day decisions using their preferred methods of communication.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People were supported to access a range of healthcare services, including GPs, dentists, opticians, chiropodists and specialist professionals. Staff worked with healthcare professionals to ensure people could access support appropriate to their individual health needs and people attended healthcare appointments as required.

People were also supported to access community opportunities, including day services and activities. Staff made adjustments to meet people's individual health, dietary and communication needs and worked with other services to support people's ongoing participation and access to care.

Records did not always demonstrate how community participation opportunities were planned, progressed and reviewed in line with people's individual goals and preferences. The provider recognised this during the assessment process and demonstrated a willingness to further develop activity planning and individual opportunities, including considering how support could be adapted to reflect people's assessed needs and preferences.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

People's individual health, cultural, religious and communication needs were recognised and reflected in their care and support. Reasonable adjustments were made to support people to access services and opportunities, and people's dignity, preferences and human rights were respected. Staff also supported people to maintain relationships with those important to them and understood their individual circumstances.

People with additional health needs did not always have access to the same experiences and opportunities as others. For example, during a period of extremely hot weather, staff took steps to support people's comfort and well-being, including providing drinks, access to shaded areas and electric fans where required. Staff also recognised that people requiring thickened fluids could not safely have standard ice lollies. However, alternative dysphagia-friendly cooling treats had not initially been explored. Following discussion during the assessment process, the provider sought specialist advice about suitable alternatives. This demonstrated a willingness to consider how experiences could be adapted to meet people's individual needs whilst remaining safe.

The provider supported people 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.

End-of-life care planning was in place for people where appropriate. Records considered people's communication needs, relationships, preferred environment and support requirements. Care records also included information about future arrangements and planning for significant life events.

Some families were involved in future planning where appropriate, and records demonstrated consideration of people's wishes, relationships and support needs should their health deteriorate. Planning reflected people's individual circumstances and included arrangements following death where relevant.

Records did not always clearly demonstrate who had contributed to end-of-life planning discussions, what views had been shared or how these had informed future planning. However, records demonstrated that future care and support arrangements had been considered and documented.