Albert Suites at Battersea Place

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

People were encouraged and supported to raise safety concerns with the provider. The managers and staff understood the importance of reporting safety concerns and learning lessons when things went wrong.

Systems were in place to support staff to report and record safety concerns and events when they arose. The managers investigated safety concerns and events and used the learning from these to support staff to continually improve their practice, reduce risk and keep people safe.

The service 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.

Information was obtained from people, and others involved in their care, about people’s individual needs and risks they might face. This was used to develop individualised care and risk management plans to ensure people received safe and appropriate care and support from the moment they moved into the care home.

The service worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. They 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 service shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

Managers and staff understood how to safeguard people. They had all received up to date safeguarding adults training and knew how to recognise and report abuse. Managers and staff were able to articulate how they would spot signs if people were at risk of abuse or harm. A member of staff told us, “I have received safeguarding training, which is regularly updated, so I know I must report any incidents of abuse or neglect I witness or am told about straight to my line manager.”

Managers worked proactively with the relevant external health and social care professionals and bodies, including the local authority.

People told us they felt safe living at the care home. One person said, “I do feel safe living here.” A relative added, “[Name of family member] is very safe at the care home.”

People were supported to understand the care and support staff provided them. People’s care plans made it clear what decisions people could make for themselves. Staff understood people’s capacity to make decisions about the care and support they received. Managers and staff confirmed they had received Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) training. The service was clearly working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).

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

People told us the staff knew how to keep them safe. A relative said, “Staff understand my [family members] needs and know how to keep them safe.” Staff were aware of the potential risks people might face and the steps they needed to take to prevent or safely manage them. For example, staff closely monitored people who were at risk of falling, so they would be immediately available if their assistance were required.

People’s care records contained up to date, sufficiently detailed and accurate risk assessments and management plans. Staff told us they always followed people’s assessments and plans to enable people to take reasonable risks. Systems were in place to ensure risks to people were continually assessed, monitored and reviewed.

The service detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, and facilities supported the delivery of safe care.

The premises were kept free of obstacles and hazards which enabled people to move safely around the care home. There were effective arrangements to monitor the safety and upkeep of the premises. Regular checks were completed to help ensure the safety of the home’s physical environment and fire safety equipment. Staff told us they had clear guidelines available to help them deal with emergencies. In relation to fire safety, we saw emergency evacuation plans were in place to help staff evacuate people in an emergency.

General risk assessments were regularly reviewed and updated including, reference to equipment used to support people, such as mobile hoists. This equipment was regularly serviced and maintained. Maintenance records demonstrated the environment was maintained to a good standard.

The service did not always ensure staff received effective supervision and had their overall work performance appraised regularly. There were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff who worked well-together to meet people’s individual needs.

Staff had their overall work performance formally appraised by the services manager annually. However, no staff had received more than one individual supervision meeting with their line manager in the last 12 months, contrary to the providers own staff supervision procedures and recognised best staff support practice. This was confirmed by several staff who told us they had only had one formal supervision meeting this year [2025] but had their work performance appraised in the last 12 months by the services manager. For example, one member of staff said, “This year I’ve only had one supervision meeting with the manager, but I did have my annual work performance appraisal.” Another added, “My last supervision with my manager was about 6 months ago. They don’t happen quarterly, but our work was appraised by the new manager this year.” This meant staff did not always have enough formal opportunities to reflect on their working practices and professional development.

We discussed this issue with the services manager at the time of our inspection who acknowledged this was an area of practice they needed to improve. They told us a time specific action plan had been agreed for all staff to receive quarterly formal supervision meetings with their line managers from now on, including at least one by the end of this year [2025].

Staffing levels in the care home matched the staff duty rota on the day of our site visit. People told us the care home was adequately staffed. One person said, “There’s always enough staff working here.” A relative added, “The staff never seem rushed or under pressure to do tasks quickly. There’s always enough staff available to help.” Staff were visibly present throughout the care home and were quick to respond to people’s questions and requests for support. For example, we saw several instances of staff responding promptly to people who had activated their call bell alarm. One person told us, “Staff come straight away whenever I use my call bell to get their attention.” A relative added, “My [family member] has a call button and they [staff] respond within 30 seconds.”

Staff were well-trained to meet people’s individual needs, in line with their choices and preferences and encouraged to continually improve in their role. Staff received a mixture of e-learning and in-person practical and theoretical training. A member of staff said, “The training we have is always relevant and ongoing.” Another member of staff added, “We have lots of training here which is constantly being refreshed, so our knowledge and skills remain up to date.” Training was routinely refreshed as frequently as staff required it including, competency-based assessments. The training of new staff included a comprehensive induction programme.

The provider operated safe recruitment practices and only fit and suitable staff were employed to work at the care home.

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. People were supported to live in a clean, hygienic environment.

People were protected from the risk and spread of infection. A relative told us, “I’ve observed the place to always be very clean, hygienic and generally a lovely environment. The temperature is always comfortable for my [family member].” Another relative added, “The environment is always clean and tidy, and the cleaners are very good. Staff wear personal protective equipment [PPE] and always practice good hygiene.” Staff followed good hygiene practices to keep people safe. For example, staff wore PPE including single-use gloves when supporting people with their personal care. We observed the environment to be bright and clean, wheelchair accessible throughout and with no malodours.

Checks in relation to good infection control practice were completed, these included a housekeeping, laundry and hand hygiene audit. There was also a laundry and slings cleaning schedule in place.

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

Medicines stocks, balances and records showed people consistently received their prescribed medicines as and when they should. People confirmed staff supported them to take their medicines as they were prescribed. One person said, “Staff do assist me with my medicines and there are no issues with that.” A relative added, “They [staff] assist my [family member] with her medicines. The staff are qualified to do this, and we have no issues to report.”

Staff completed most medicines administration records as and when they should. However, some records in relation to medicines support did not always follow good practice. For example, controlled medicines for one person were not recorded in the correct register.

We discussed these issues with the manager at the time of our inspection. They acknowledged this and this issue had also been identified in an external medicines audit carried out by a pharmacist. We were assured the managers had incorporated all the recommendations made in the external medicines audit described above into the providers most recent action plan for improvement. Staff trained to manage medicines had already had their competency to continue managing medicines safely reassessed recently because of the aforementioned recording errors.

Care plans included detailed guidance for staff about how people needed and preferred their medicines to be administered. Medicines audits continued to be routinely undertaken at the care home. This included regular checks of staff’s practice to ensure they remained competent to administer and manage peoples prescribed medicines safely. There was an up-to-date medicines policy in place for staff to refer to in relation to the safe management of medicines and best practice.