You are here

Albert Suites at Battersea Place Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 28 June 2018

This inspection took place on 17 April 2018 and was unannounced. This was the first inspection of the service since it was registered by CQC on 24 October 2016.

Albert Suites at Battersea Place is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Albert Suites at Battersea Place can accommodate 27 people. It is arranged over one floor and accommodates people with nursing needs including those on palliative care. The majority of people using the service at the time of the inspection were post-operative, coming in for respite following a hospital admission. At the time of the inspection there were 16 people using the service.

There was a registered manager at the service. 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.

People using the service told us they felt safe at Albert Suites. They said that staff were caring and friendly and respected their privacy. They told us they were involved in planning their care and were able to make choices about how they wanted this to be delivered. This included being fully involved in the initial assessment stage when planning their care, their meals and the activities they wanted to do.

Staff recruitment checks were robust and new staff completed a comprehensive induction and training programme which helped them to prepare for their roles. Staff received regular supervision and appraisal. Although there were enough staff employed to meet people’s needs, we received feedback regarding the difference in care people received from agency staff as compared to permanent staff. The registered manager was aware of this and had taken steps to try and resolve this.

Checks were completed on the equipment and the environment which was clean and well maintained. People had access to an outdoor space and ample indoor space including private and communal areas outside of their bedrooms to meet with friends and relatives.

People’s health needs were managed by the provider. A GP visited weekly to review people and care plans contained details about their health requirements. We received feedback that the nursing care was good.

Care planning, including risk assessments and care plans was appropriate. Risks to people were identified and steps identified to control risks to people. Care plans were clear, comprehensive and reviewed regularly.

The service was well led. The values of the service were taught and embedded into staff during their recruitment and induction. The registered manager was open to establishing and maintaining relationships with external stakeholders. A number of audits took place to monitor the quality of service.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 28 June 2018

The service was safe.

People told us they felt safe using the service.

Risk assessments were person-centred and reviewed regularly. Equipment was regularly serviced and well maintained.

Recruitment systems were robust and made sure that the right staff were recruited to support people to stay safe.

People received their medicines as prescribed.

Effective

Good

Updated 28 June 2018

The service was effective.

Care and support was planned before people began to use the service.

Staff completed a comprehensive induction and completed the Care Certificate training. Staff received regular supervision and appraisals to monitor their performance.

People exercised genuine choice and had access to sufficient food and drink throughout the day. The menu was varied and individual to each person.

People's health needs were identified and action taken to address them.

People had access to an outside space, a terraced garden that was well maintained.

People were involved in decisions about their care, their consent and agreement to their care and support was taken during the initial assessment and when they moved into the service.

Caring

Good

Updated 28 June 2018

The service was caring.

People who told us they were happy with the care and support they received from staff.

People were supported to express their views and be actively involved in making decisions about their care, support and treatment.

People’s right to privacy and confidentiality was always respected.

Responsive

Good

Updated 28 June 2018

The service was responsive.

People were involved in developing their care, support and treatment plans.

The service enabled people to carry out person-centred activities and encouraged them to maintain hobbies and interests.

People using the service felt confident that if they complained, their concerns would be explored and responded to.

Well-led

Good

Updated 28 June 2018

The service was well led.

People using the service told us the service was well-managed.

The values of the service were covered during the staff induction and new staff were assessed on how they demonstrated the values of the service during their probationary review.

A number of audits, including care plans and medicines audits, helped to ensure that performance, risks and regulatory requirements were understood and managed.