Background to this inspection
Updated
2 April 2019
The inspection:
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
Inspection Team:
One inspector carried out this inspection, supported by a specialist mental health nurse.
Service and service type:
Albany House is a care home. People in care homes receive accommodation and personal care. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.
The service did not have a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.’ A manager had been appointed on 17 January 2019 and was in the process of registering with us.
Notice of inspection:
The inspection was unannounced.
What we did when preparing for and carrying out this inspection:
We reviewed information we had received about the service since the last inspection. This included details about incidents the provider must notify us about, such as potential abuse, information from the public such as share your experience forms, whistle blowing concerns and information shared with us by local commissioners (who commission services of care). We had previously inspected a home managed by this provider in December 2018 and because of the concerns we found at that particular home, we did a full rating inspection at this home looking specifically at some key areas. This was so we could be confident people received care that was safe, effective, caring, responsive and from a well led provider who learnt from previous experiences to help drive improvement. We sent the provider a provider information return (PIR). This is a form which gives them an opportunity to tell us about their service and what they do well. Through our conversations with the management and staff we gave them an opportunity to tell us and show us how what they described to us translated into practice.
During our inspection we spoke with three people living at Albany House to understand their experience of what is was like for them. These people did not want to have a full conversation with us, but were happy to share some of their experiences of living at the home. Other people had gone out for the day or did not wish to speak with us. We spoke with the manager, a nurse and two care staff.
We reviewed a range of records. For example, we looked at three people's care records and multiple medication records. We also looked at records relating to the management of the home. These included systems for managing any complaints. We looked at the provider’s checks on the quality of care provided that assured them they delivered the best service they could. Following our visit, we received further information from the manager to demonstrate audits were completed when records were not available to us on the day of our visit.
Updated
2 April 2019
About the service: Albany House is a mental health nursing home registered to provide accommodation with nursing and personal care for up to eight people who have mental health illness. A total of eight people lived at the service however one person was in hospital at the time of our inspection visit. The service specialises in providing 'aftercare services'; the care and support of people who have been detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 and then discharged from certain sections of the Act.
People’s experience of using this service:
•There were enough staff to meet people’s assessed needs and support their planned activities.
•Risks which affected people’s daily lives, both in the home and out in the community, were documented and managed by staff.
•Staff had completed safeguarding training and knew what to do if they were concerned about people’s well-being.
•Staff provided support for people to take the medicines they needed to remain well.
•Staff received training which enabled them to provide care and support in line with best techniques and current practice to meet people’s needs.
•People were supported to make daily living choices such as what they wanted to eat and how to maintain good mental and physical health.
•People benefitted from following their own interests and hobbies and staff helped people to become more socially involved and engaged within the local community.
•Staff were aware people’s needs could change, and understood when to seek advice and involve other health care professionals and services.
•People were encouraged and supported by staff to make decisions about their care and how this care was delivered to them. Staff knew people’s preferred ways of communicating, to assist people to make their own choices.
•People were treated with respect and understanding. Staff were aware of how their approach could affect people’s personalities and wellbeing. Staff took a genuine interest in people, knew them well and had a good understanding of their social and cultural needs.
• Staff encouraged and supported people to be as independent as possible.
•Care plans contained good and clear information for staff to help them provide good and consistent care to people. Plans were personalised and focussed clearly on maintaining physical and mental wellbeing.
•There was a manager in post at the time our inspection visit and they were in the process of registering with us.
•Plans were made to improve the interior and exterior of the home and staff and people living at the home, kept the home clean.
•People and staff’s feedback was sought to improve the delivery of service.
•Systems of audits were in place but further scrutiny was needed to make sure actions were taken when checks were completed or delegated to others.
We found the service met the characteristics of a “Good” rating in four areas and “Requires Improvement” in one area; For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection: Good. The last report for Albany House was published on 29 July 2016.
Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection. The previous ‘good’ service provided to people had remained consistent.
Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.