Albany Lodge

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.

This is the first assessment for this service under a new provider. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

People had goals and targets set to promote independence within their care plans, however, records did not demonstrate whether people had met these goals or their progress towards them. 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. People’s relatives told us when they needed changes made to the care they received, this was not always provided or fully discussed with them.

Relatives found the care to be generalised and not always personalised. Staff understood the importance of treating people with respect and not to discriminate. Staff told us they included people by asking them what they wanted to eat and what they would like to wear on the day.

People were supported to receive healthcare support to maintain people’s health needs.

This service scored 64 (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 work in partnership with people to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. For example, care plans included information about people’s needs, likes dislikes and preferences. Our observations showed most staff knew people well and had formed positive relationships with them.

Care plans were reviewed; however they made no comment on progress in line with people’s care plan objectives. This meant we could not be assured all care plans were up to date or appropriate to meet people’s needs. They did not ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met the expectations of people themselves.

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. For example, people’s care records evidenced they received consistent care across different settings and from different healthcare professionals. This included with their GP and community nursing teams. A record for each person was maintained detailing visits and communication with other professionals.

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

The provider has information available in large print and different languages. The manager told us they used communication boards, and visual cues such as show plates. On the day of inspection, duty managers were named in Reception. The provider identified staff using photos on their team board. Reception was staffed throughout the day.

The manager runs regular monthly residents’ meetings, for people and their representatives. The provider conducts an annual resident’s survey. The manager has told us they are introducing a new feedback process to encourage relatives, professionals and staff to give feedback regaridng the care and support provided.

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

People told us they felt in control of their care and one person told us that when their wishes couldn’t be met, they were satisfied with the explanation they were given. Seven care plans were reviewed, most of which were individualised and updated regularly or when needs changed.

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 staff team was diverse, and people’s protected characteristics and social histories were detailed. People were treated as individuals which informed their risk assessments and care. Group activities were varied and inclusive.

People were not always 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.

Care plans that we reviewed did not always document people’s preferences in relation to this important area to ensure people’s wishes were known and followed.

The provider had introduced a new electronic care management system which provided tools to help staff document how they supported people to plan for important life changes. It was not possible to check how effective this new electronic care management system was since it had just been introduced and was not yet embedded into practice.