Albany House - Stratford-upon-Avon

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 72 (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 had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

People told us staff discussed any safety incidents with them, so they could decide together how to reduce the likelihood of incidents happening in the future.

Staff understood how to identify and report accidents, incidents and near misses and told us learning was communicated to them promptly. The registered manager checked what incidents had occurred and identified patterns which indicated people may need extra help from their own staff or other health and social care professionals, to reduce the likelihood of similar incidents happening again.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

People told us they could rely on staff contacting other health and social care professionals when they needed extra help.

People were supported to access a range of services to help them maintain their health and well-being. These included GPs, consultants, social workers and the community mental health team.

Staff understood what key information and items, such as medicines, needed to be taken when people transferred between services.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

People were comfortable and at ease with the staff supporting them and told us they felt their safety needs were met.

Staff had received training in safeguarding and knew how to identify possible abuse. Staff were confident senior staff would promptly address any concerns about people’s protection and safety.

The registered manager understood their responsibilities to protect people and to work with other agencies to achieve this, should this be required.

Systems were in place to apply for and manage Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, (DoLS), where appropriate. At the time of our assessment, nobody had any restrictions in their planned support which they had not consented to, or which required a DoLS application to be submitted.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

People's risks were assessed, regularly reviewed and managed in a way which balanced safety with people’s independence. This included risks relating to their physical health, wellbeing and long-term health conditions, such as anxiety or reduced mobility.

Staff worked with people to achieve their goals and carefully considered how to reduce restrictions while keeping people as safe as possible. Where appropriate, risk management arrangements were adjusted gradually over time to support people to become more independent.

Staff had access to guidance within people's support plans on how to identify, monitor and manage risks. For example, if people were anxious or upset. A relative told us staff understood the risks to their family member when this happened, and were skilled at reassuring them, so they remained safe. We saw staff were aware of the risks arising from people’s underlying health conditions and regularly checked on people. This helped to promote people's safety and ensure support was provided consistently.

The provider usually detected and controlled most potential risks in the care environment. They did not always make sure equipment and staff practice supported the delivery of safe care.

On the first day of the inspection, we found some actions were required to further reduce risks to people in relation to the environment. These included 1 window restrictor, which required securely attaching, ensuring fire drills were periodically undertaken at night, and removal of potential trip hazards near the exit from the conservatory into the garden. These areas had either been resolved or progressed by the second day of the inspection.

However, the registered manager had identified when most improvements or repairs to the decor and furniture were required, and we found these were addressed promptly.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

People told us they did not have to wait long if they wanted support from staff. Although there had been changes in the staffing structure to support people, people told us this had not adversely affected the quality and safety of the care provided.

Staff said there were enough staff to provide good care to people and we saw staff had time to chat to people, and check if they wanted any support, so people did not feel isolated.

Processes were in place to safely recruit staff. New staff were supported through induction and all staff had opportunities to develop their skills and knowledge further through training.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

The home was clean and well maintained. Staff were allocated specific cleaning responsibilities during shift handovers, so it was clear who was responsible for maintaining cleanliness throughout the home.

Staff were supported to follow good infection prevention and control practices through visual guidance, including hand hygiene posters, and clear expectations from the registered manager regarding food storage and labelling. Hand sanitising gel was available at key points throughout the home.

The registered manager and senior staff carried out regular checks of the environment to monitor cleanliness and help ensure infection prevention and control standards were maintained.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

People were supported to manage their medicines safely and in line with their preferences. Some people managed their own medicines independently, while others received support from staff. People told us they were satisfied with how their medicines were managed and said they could rely on staff to provide them when needed. One person told us, “They give you your meds, [medication], on the dot.”

Only staff who had completed medicines training and had their competency assessed were authorised to administer medicines. Clear arrangements were in place to support the safe use of medicines prescribed on an 'as required' basis, and for reviewing people’s medicines when required.

Staff understood what action to take in the event of an error when administering people’s medicines, and effective systems were in place for the safe receipt, storage and disposal of medicines.