Albert House

Updated 4 December 2020

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

As part of CQC’s response to the coronavirus pandemic we are conducting a thematic review of infection control and prevention measures in care homes.

The service was selected to take part in this thematic review which is seeking to identify examples of good practice in infection prevention and control.

This inspection took place on 10 November 2020 and was announced.

Updated 4 December 2020

Albert House is a residential care home for up to eight adults who may have a range of care needs including a learning disability, autistic spectrum disorder and / or physical disabilities. There were eight people living at the service on the day of the inspection.

A registered manager was in post. 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.

This inspection took place on 24 August 2017 and was unannounced.

At the last inspection in July 2015, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good overall, but with one area for improvement.

Despite systems being in place to ensure the service acted in line with legislation and guidance in terms of seeking people’s consent and assessing their capacity to make decisions about their care and support, people's finances were not always managed in line with Best Interest decision making processes.

Why the service is still rated Good:

Staff had been trained to recognise signs of potential abuse and keep people safe. Processes were also in place to manage identifiable risks within the service to ensure people were supported safely and did not have their freedom unnecessarily restricted.

There were sufficient numbers of suitable staff to keep people safe and meet their needs and checks were being carried out on new staff to make sure they were suitable and safe to work at the service.

People received their medicines when they needed them and in a safe way.

Staff received the right training to ensure they had the necessary skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs.

People had a choice of food, and had enough to eat and drink.

The service worked with external healthcare professionals, to ensure effective arrangements were in place to meet people’s healthcare needs.

Staff provided care and support in a caring and meaningful way. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity, and treated them with kindness and compassion.

People were given opportunities to participate in meaningful activities.

Arrangements were in place for people to raise any concerns or complaints they might have about the service. People and relatives were given regular opportunities to express their views on the service they received.

The management team provided effective leadership at the service, and promoted a positive culture that was open and transparent.

Systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service provided and drive continuous improvement.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.