Albany Lodge

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

This is the first assessment for this service under a new provider. This key question has been rated good.

This meant people outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this. We did however find evidence of a Breach of Regulation 9 to do with person centred care. There was a failure to assess people's needs in a way which was appropriate and which met their needs and reflected their preferences.

Assessments did not always reflect people's needs or preferences. Information about how to meet people's needs was not always clearly recorded. This included information about healthcare needs.

Most people’s relatives felt their family members had the support they needed when they become unwell. However, one relative told us about a situation when a person became unwell, and they felt there had not been enough timely intervention to prevent this.

This service scored 62 (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’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.The provider had an electronic care records system in place, however this did not always bring key risks together in one place, to easily inform staff how to manage people’s care. There was not enough information about people's needs and how these should be met for example with people’s hydration needs. Care plans reviewed showed different levels of information and levels of instruction for staff to follow to minimise potential risks. One person’s relative commented on their family member who had dementia. They did not think staff knew how to deal appropriately with their family member when trying to support the person with personal care. When we asked if the relative had seen a care plan for their family member, they said they had not and were not involved in any reviews of the care plan.

People with a lower level of needs relating to their health, care and safety were assessed, with a range of areas covered, including people's physical and mental health, their physical environment and behaviour.

Failure to assess people's needs in a way which was appropriate, met their needs and reflected their preferences was a breach of Regulation 9 (person-centred care).

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

People and their relatives generally spoke positively about their meals. They told us, “The food is alright and I can choose what to eat” and “There’s no rush for lunch or dinner.” A person’s relative told us there were vegetarian options for them as they preferred. A relative said, “[Their family member] and I have no complaints with the food.” However, support was not always provided in a way to ensure that people’s fluid and hydration needs were met. For example, daily recording of people’s food and fluid intake were not always complete and up to date. Some people’s assessments of their skin integrity care needs were not always completed correctly.

The provider did not always maintain appropriate systems to provide assurance people’s care needs were always assessed effectively and their nutritional and hydration needs were always met. There were gaps in the daily records of what some people were supported to eat and there was not always a clear review of people’s daily fluid intakes and a record of actions taken to respond to these concerns.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. Healthcare professionals we spoke with told us they worked well together with staff in the home. They reported staff had a good collaborative approach with them and together they were able to ensure people had the care they needed.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future need for care and support. The service worked with healthcare services to meet people’s health needs including arranging and supporting people to attend health appointments. However, some staff could not always readily provide information about people’s health to healthcare professionals when they visited, and this was sometimes left to senior staff. The registered manager set out how they worked with healthcare professionals to meet people’s healthcare needs, including nurses, opticians, chiropody and GPs.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future need for care and support. The service worked with healthcare services to meet people’s health needs including arranging and supporting people to attend health appointments. However, some staff could not always readily provide information about people’s health to healthcare professionals when they visited, and this was sometimes left to senior staff. The registered manager set out how they worked with healthcare professionals to meet people’s healthcare needs, including nurses, opticians, chiropody and GPs.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

The provider made efforts to tell people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. Where people could consent, they had signed their care plans giving their permission around their support. Capacity assessments were in place for people who could not consent, these were around medicines, support with personal care and financial management. These were well written and represented the best interests of the individual. However, the provider’s care planning system did not indicate whether other relevant people such as families were involved in the decision-making process and we saw no minutes of these discussions to reflect this.