Albury Care Limited

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 good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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 made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People had personalised care plans which recorded all health and social needs. These were under regular review and updated when needed. People were happy with their care and told us they had regular reviews.

Staff gave us many examples of how they provided person-centred care to people and demonstrated a good understanding and knowledge of people’s needs. One member of staff said, “I always provide person-centred care by respecting each person’s individual preferences, routines and choices.”

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.

People had a continuity with their care as the service had a stable and experienced staff team. The service did not use any agency staff which meant staff knew people and their needs well. There was good communication with office staff which enabled people to get in touch with leaders and make changes to their care packages. One relative said, “I can ring up the office and there have never been any problems changing times if we are going away.”

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

People’s care records demonstrated assessments of their communication needs had taken place and there was clear information on how to support people to understand communication. If needed the provider could arrange for people to have information in different formats. For example, a larger font or pictorial information.

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.

The provider did annual surveys to ask people and relatives for their views and feedback. Surveys demonstrated people were very satisfied with the service provided. People said they were able to share any concerns, and they were confident the registered manager would respond appropriately. Comments from people and relatives included, “They [leaders] take on board comments, and we have regular reviews” and “About every 6 months or so they will do a check visit and see if there are any complaints and what’s working or not working.”

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

The service provided domiciliary care and live-in care. People had choices on the type of care suitable for their needs. There was an on-call management system which meant people, relatives and staff could ring and speak with a leader at any time.

Staff advocated for people and made sure they could access services. For example, staff called GPs for people and supported them to access other healthcare appointments. Office staff monitored health appointments and made sure these were provided to people in a timely way.

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

The registered manager was aware of people’s rights and understood who was likely to experience inequality. They told us they actively looked for ways to help people maintain their dignity and keep their independence. For example, if people had reduced mobility, staff sought specialist equipment. The registered manager said they used equipment for a range of mobility needs. For example, staff had training on using wheelchairs, hoists and stand aids. This helped make sure people maintained their skills for as long as possible.

People were supported 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.

There was no end-of-life care being provided at the time of this assessment. However, staff had delivered this type of care in the past. If people wanted to record their end of life wishes this was supported. Any special instructions were known by staff. For example, if people had made decisions about resuscitation, this was recorded in their care plans with the location of any documents to support this.