The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Albany Care Home

Overall: Inadequate read more about inspection ratings

Albany House, Albany Way, Washington, Tyne and Wear, NE37 1BJ (0191) 415 3481

Provided and run by:
Cotswold Spa Retirement Hotels Limited

All Inspections

1 and 2 September 2015

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 1 September 2015 and was unannounced. This meant that the provider did not know we would be visiting. A second day of inspection took place on 2 September 2015, and was announced. The service was previously inspected on 3 and 10 February 2015, and was not meeting three of the regulations we inspected.

Albany Care Home is a nursing home providing personal or nursing care for up to 38 older people, some of whom are living with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 27 people living at the service.

The service had a registered manager. However, when we inspected we were told that the registered manager had been transferred to another service operated by the provider. There was an acting manager in place who was applying to become the registered manager.

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.

The service was not always safe. Medicine records were not always completed fully, which meant that it was not possible to see when medicine had been administered. There was no system for the management of controlled drugs, and no policy on supporting people who used ‘as required medicine’.

Where safeguarding incidents occurred the service did not follow its own policy and ensure that they were thoroughly and properly investigated. This meant that it was not possible to see whether allegations had been substantiated or remedial action taken.

Risks to people were not always properly assessed and documented. There was no central record of people’s support needs in emergency situations. The service monitored its staffing needs and this ensured that staffing levels were matched to the dependency needs of the people using the service.

The service had no system in place for monitoring people’s mental capacity or for making applications under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). This meant that there was a risk that support was being given without people’s consent.

Staff received training but did not always find this effective. Records of staff training were not always accurate.

People were offered food and drinks suitable to their dietary needs and preferences, and were supported with their food and nutrition where necessary.

The service treated people with dignity and respect. Some staff were kind and caring and engaged with people in a positive and meaningful way, but others undertook their work focusing on the task rather than the person.

Care plans were sometimes incomplete or contradictory, which meant that care did not always meet people’s individual needs. People did not have access to activities that were tailored to their abilities or preferences. There was a complaints procedure in place, and this was advertised at the service.

Audits took place but these did not always result in remedial action being taken or improvements in the service. Feedback from people and their families was not encouraged, and where it was received it was not always acted on. Staff did not always feel supported at the service.

The overall rating for this service is ‘Inadequate’ and the service is therefore in ‘Special measures’.

Services in special measures will be kept under review and, if we have not taken immediate action to propose to cancel the provider’s registration of the service, will be inspected again within six months.

The expectation is that providers found to have been providing inadequate care should have made significant improvements within this timeframe.

If not enough improvement is made within this timeframe so that there is still a rating of inadequate for any key question or overall, we will take action in line with our enforcement procedures to begin the process of preventing the provider from operating this service. This will lead to cancelling their registration or to varying the terms of their registration within six months if they do not improve. This service will continue to be kept under review and, if needed, could be escalated to urgent enforcement action. Where necessary, another inspection will be conducted within a further six months, and if there is not enough improvement so there is still a rating of inadequate for any key question or overall, we will take action to prevent the provider from operating this service. This will lead to cancelling their registration or to varying the terms of their registration.

For adult social care services the maximum time for being in special measures will usually be no more than 12 months. If the service has demonstrated improvements when we inspect it and it is no longer rated as inadequate for any of the five key questions it will no longer be in special measures.

03 & 10 February 2015

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on 03 and 10 February 2015. The first visit was unannounced which meant the provider did not know we would be visiting. The second visit was announced. We last inspected this service on 19 February 2014 and we found the home was meeting the regulations we inspected.

Albany Care Home is a nursing home providing personal or nursing care for up to 38 older people, some of whom are living with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 28 people living at the home.

The home did not have a registered manager. We were informed during our visit that the current manager had transferred from another location within the company. Arrangements were already in place for him to apply to become the registered manager. 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.

Some people we spoke with were unable to tell us whether they felt safe living at the home. However, when prompted by staff we saw how people displayed non-verbal signs by smiling and gesturing with their hands.

Relatives we spoke with told us, “The staff are wonderful”, and, “My mam has been here since last year and has settled in really well, the staff have worked wonders”. Other relatives we spoke with told us, “Since the new manager and his deputy the home is a lot cleaner than before.” Another commented, “It’s lovely and restful here, I’ve got no worries”. “My relative is happy and we couldn’t have picked a better place.”

There were sufficient numbers of suitable staff to keep people safe and meet their needs. Staff did comment however there have been occasions where an extra carer would have been helpful when staff were needed to escort people to hospital. Relatives told us, “There is usually enough staff on duty when we visit”. We’ve never felt the staff are not coping.”

We found there were thorough recruitment procedures in place. This helped to protect people as checks had been carried out on potential staff before a decision was made to employ them.

We found that people’s care records at did not always fully reflect the needs and support people required. . We found that there was no associated care plan to guide staff on managing a person’s specific health condition. Medication records were also not being accurately completed. We found the management of ‘when required’ medicines were inconsistent.Improvements were being made to the environment to suit the needs of people living with dementia. These included changes in the layout and decoration of the corridor walls, bedrooms and communal areas to ensure there was an appropriate environment for people living with dementia

Staff told us they felt supported by the provider and the manager by way of training, supervision and appraisal. This helped them provide effective care for people. During the inspection we observed people being offered a choice of food and if people required assistance to eat their meal, this was done in a dignified manner. Staff sought people’s consent before they provided care to them. Staff followed the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) including the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

Relatives of people who used the service were confident in the manager and how the service was managed. One relative told us, “The manager has made such a difference”. There were not always effective systems in place to manage, monitor and improve the quality of the service provided.

The system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received was not effective. We found that the systems in place to regularly assess and monitor the quality of services provided were ineffective, and not undertaken on a regular basis.

The system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received was not effective.

People received information on how to complain in their welcome packs. People had no complaints about their care and were confident any issues would be dealt with appropriately. People were encouraged to share their views about the service and these were acted on.

We found three of breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010. You can see what action we took at the back of the full version of this report.

19 February 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

At our previous visit we identified that the provider was not maintaining some parts of the home in good physical repair and condition. During this visit we found the provider had taken steps to provide care in an environment that was adequately maintained. We also found that people were protected from the risk of infection and processes were in place to make sure the home was clean and hygienic.

2 July 2013

During an inspection in response to concerns

During this inspection we spent time observing how people were cared for to help us understand the experiences of people using the service. This was because some of the people using the service had specific needs which meant they were not able to tell us about their experiences. During our observations we saw people were treated with consideration and respect. We reviewed four care records and saw that people's preferences and care needs had been recorded. The manager told us how new care plan documentation will be introduced in August 2013. We were told staff were currently being trained in how the new format for care records would be recorded. We spoke to three of the people using the service. They told us they were happy with the staff who supported them. One person told us "Things are good, and I feel safe and 'looked after here". Another said "The staff are really lovely". One visitor told us she thought the service was "Good" and she was "Impressed with the manager who is pleasant and supportive" and how she was happy with the care her relative had received.

We found the building was being altered and adapted for the needs of people who used the service but it was not being adequately maintained. Staff received professional development and people told us staff were well trained. We saw the provider had systems in place to gather feedback from people who used the service, and to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service people received.

22 August 2012

During a routine inspection

People we spoke with told us they were happy with the care they received and liked living at the service. A visitor we spoke with confirmed they were satisfied with the care their relative received and had no concerns. People said they liked how the manager knew them by their first name, and the care staff always made people feel welcome when visiting the home. No one we spoke with had needed to use the complaint process.

17 November and 13 December 2011

During a routine inspection

Those able to express an opinion told us that they were very happy living in the home. People told us they were well looked after, and one person told us that the staff and manager were 'nice people.' Another person said "the nurses are wonderful, I love them."Relatives told us that they were very happy with the care their family members were receiving, and said that they had no complaints at all about the service.

One relative said the care was 'excellent' and they had 'every confidence" in the staff team.

We found that the atmosphere in the home was relaxed, and the approach taken by staff was calm and unhurried. We saw some very positive interactions between people living in the home and members of staff. People looked well cared for, and at ease with the members of staff supporting them.