We carried out a review of the data available to us about Albany House - Doncaster on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Albany House - Doncaster, you can give feedback on this service.
Albany House – Doncaster is a residential care home providing personal care and accommodation for up to 40 people. There are two areas of the home, with one of the units specialising in supporting people living with a more advanced stage of dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 26 people living in the home.
People’s experience of using this service:
A new manager had registered with CQC since the last inspection and they had worked with the provider in addressing the shortfalls identified at the last inspection and to make further improvements in the service. Improvements had been made in cleanliness and infection control and we were assured the service were following safe infection prevention and control procedures to keep people safe. The provider had ensured staff knew what to do in the event of a fire. Improvements had also been made to the effectiveness of the quality and safety audits, so appropriate governance and quality assurance systems were in place to monitor and improve the service.
Relatives told us people felt safe and happy with the staff who cared for them. We saw risks were well managed, and people’s medicines were managed safely. Staff had a good understanding of how to safeguard people from abuse and there were enough staff to meet people’s needs and keep them safe.
We received very positive feedback about the management and leadership of the service from people we spoke with. This included people’s relatives, staff and other professionals. One relative said, “[The registered manager] is amazing.” The feedback we received also showed the service worked creatively to help people keep in touch with their friends and families during the COVID-19 pandemic. It was also evident the team worked well in partnership with other professionals to provide a person centred service that met people’s needs.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection and update:
The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 10 April 2019) and there were breaches of regulation. The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of the regulations.
Why we inspected
This inspection was carried out to follow up on action we told the provider to take at the last inspection. Additionally, the inspection looked at the Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) practices the provider has in place. This is because, as part of CQC’s response to care homes with outbreaks of coronavirus, we are conducting reviews to ensure the IPC practice was safe, and the service was compliant with IPC measures.
We reviewed the information we held about the service. We did not inspect other key questions as no areas of concern were identified in them. Ratings from previous comprehensive inspections for those key questions were used in calculating the overall rating at this inspection.
The overall rating for the service has changed from requires improvement to good.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Albany House Care Home on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
People’s experience of using this service:
We carried out a tour of the home and found some infection control, health and safety and environmental issues, which required immediate attention. The manager and regional manager told us these areas would be fully addressed following our inspection.
We recommend the provider ensures they understand their regulatory responsibilities to ensure they are complying with fire regulations.
The manager conducted quality assurance audits to monitor the running of the service. However, we found that these were not always effective as they didn't always identify the shortfalls we found on inspection.
People remained safe at the service and risks around their well-being were assessed, recorded and regularly reviewed. People were supported by sufficient staff that knew them well.
Recruitment procedures to appoint new staff were thorough. People were supported to take their medicines safely. People received their care and support from a staff team, that had a full understanding of people's care needs and the skills and knowledge to meet them. Staff were given an induction when they started and had access to a range of training to provide them with the level of skills and knowledge to deliver care efficiently.
Staff treated people with respect and kindness at all times and were passionate about providing a quality service that was person centred. People's dignity and privacy was respected.
People had access to healthcare professionals when required. People received a nutritious diet which met their needs and preferences. Staff received training which enabled them to effectively carry out their role.
We spent time observing staff interaction with people who used the service and found they were kind and caring. People’s relatives we spoke with said their relatives received good care.
We viewed people’s care records and found they reflected their needs and preferences. A range of activities were provided which gave people opportunity to access social stimulation. The service had a complaints procedure.
Rating at last inspection: Good (report published 30 July 2016)
Why we inspected: This was a planned comprehensive inspection based on the rating at the last inspection.
Enforcement/Improvement action we have told the provider to take: Please see the ‘action we have told the provider to take’ section towards the end of the report.
Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Albany House is a 40 bedded care home without nursing providing 24 hour care for older people, some living with dementia. The home is situated in Doncaster, South Yorkshire. At the time of our inspection there were 27 people living at the home.
There was a registered manager 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.
People told us they felt safe with staff. Staff and healthcare professionals had no concerns about the safety of people. There were policies and procedures regarding the safeguarding of adults and staff knew what action to take if they thought anyone was at risk of potential harm.
Potential risks to people had been identified and assessed appropriately. There were sufficient numbers of staff to support people and safe recruitment practices were followed. Medicines were managed safely overall but not regularly audited.
Staff had received all essential training. All staff training was up-to-date with refresher course booked for people. Team meetings were held and staff had regular communication with each other at handover meetings which took place between each shift.
During our inspection we saw there were sufficient staff on duty. The registered manager told us staffing levels were based on a combination of people's needs and the number of people living at Albany House.
People were supported to have sufficient to eat and drink, maintain a healthy diet and had access to healthcare professionals. Staff knew people well and positive, caring relationships had been developed. People were encouraged to express their views and these were communicated to staff and the registered manager. People were involved in decisions about their care as much as they were able. Their privacy and dignity were respected and promoted. Staff understood how to care for people in a sensitive way.
Care plans provided information about people in a person-centred way. People's preferences and likes and dislikes were documented so that staff knew how people wished to be supported. Complaints were dealt with in line with the provider's policy.
People could express their views and discuss any issues or concerns with the staff, who co-ordinated all aspects of their care. The culture of the service was homely and family-orientated. Regular audits measured the quality of the care and service provided.
We spoke with three people who used the service and four relatives who were visiting the home at the time of the inspection. People told us they were happy with the care provided at the home. They said staff were kind and helped them to maintain their independence.
We found that before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes. Where people did not have the capacity to consent, the provider acted in accordance with legal requirements.
People experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights. Relatives we spoke with said they were happy with the care provided and praised the manager who they said was approachable and professional. One relative said, 'My relative has lived at Albany house for 12 years she is very happy.'
We found systems protected people who used the service against the risks associated with the unsafe use and management of medication.
There were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs.
Complaints were investigated and responded to in a timely manner.
People told us they were happy with the care they received. We also reviewed care records which showed that risk assessments and formal reviews were undertaken to ensure care was effective and safe.
People told us they felt safe at the home. There was a policy on safeguarding and care workers we spoke with understood how to report any suspicions of abuse.
People told us they thought care workers knew what they were doing. We found that care workers got appropriate training, supervision and development.
People who used the service and their relatives told us they were asked for their opinion as to the quality of care provided. There were also systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service people received.
People who used the service and their relatives told us they were asked for their opinion as to the quality of care provided. There were also systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service people received.
People who spoke with us said they felt the environment was comfortable and homely. People said the food was good and that the choice of food, for each meal, was flexible.
People told us they felt safe in the home and the care was good. People knew who to speak to if they had a problem and they told us the staff or manager took quick action to put things right.