CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Albany House - Doncaster
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, December 2020
Albany House - Doncaster was rated Good; inspectors found safe care, improved cleanliness and stronger management systems.
This was a follow-up inspection after the home was previously rated Requires Improvement. It also checked infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic. Inspectors visited on 4 November 2020 and completed further work by telephone, email and online meetings until 16 November 2020.
Inspectors found improvements in cleanliness, infection control, fire safety and quality checks. They found enough staff, safe medicines management, suitable risk assessments and staff who understood safeguarding. Relatives said people felt safe and happy, and the home helped families keep in touch during visiting restrictions.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe and Well-led were both rated Good at this inspection. The other three areas were not inspected, so their previous ratings were used when calculating the overall rating.
Cleanliness and infection control
Inspectors found that the home had improved its cleanliness and was following safe infection prevention procedures, including use of protective equipment and testing.
“At this inspection we completed a tour of the home and found the registered manager had introduced improvements, ensuring the premises and equipment were clean.” from the report
Staffing and medicines
There were enough staff to meet people's needs safely. Medicines audits and staff competency checks supported safe and timely administration.
“There were enough staff to support people safely, to ensure their needs were met and to engage with people in a positive and meaningful way.” from the report
Improved oversight
The home's audits had been strengthened and were being used to identify improvements and track action.
“Regular quality and safety audits took place and the outcome of these audits were fed into the provider's quality improvement process.” from the report
Family communication
The home used garden and window visits, letters, photographs and a private social media group to help relatives stay in touch during the pandemic.
“The service had set up a private social media group for relatives.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are infection control procedures, PPE and testing kept up to date now?
- 02How often are fire evacuation drills carried out, and how is staff training checked?
- 03What medicines audits are currently completed, and how are any problems followed up?
- 04How are quality and safety audits used to identify and complete improvements?
- 05What ways can relatives keep in touch if normal visiting is restricted?
This was a follow-up inspection focused on Safe, Well-led and infection prevention and control; Caring, Effective and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried over. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 December 2020 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, April 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and effective care, but safety checks and quality monitoring were not reliable enough.
This was a planned comprehensive inspection on 14 March 2019. One inspector toured the home, spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care records, staff files and management information.
People were generally supported by enough staff who knew them well. Inspectors found good care in areas including training, food, healthcare, medicines, kindness, dignity, personalised care and activities.
However, some infection control, health and safety and environmental problems needed immediate attention. Fire evacuation drills had not been carried out for a considerable time. The home's own audits had not found several of these problems, so the overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection to Requires Improvement.
Suitable staffing and training
There were enough staff to meet people's needs, and recruitment checks were completed. Staff had training, supervision and experience suitable for their roles.
“People were supported by sufficient staff that knew them well.” from the report
Personalised support and activities
Care records included people's needs and preferences. The activity co-ordinator provided activities that people appeared to enjoy and found meaningful.
“We observed activities being provided during our inspection and found they were meaningful and people enjoyed taking part in them.” from the report
Food and healthcare
People were offered food and drinks suited to their needs and preferences. Staff helped people access healthcare professionals when needed.
“During our inspection we observed meals were of a good quality with thought being given to how meals were presented.” from the report
Fire safety drills
seriousStaff had not taken part in fire evacuation drills for a considerable time. Inspectors recommended that the provider follow fire safety requirements.
“We recommend the provider ensures they understand their legal responsibilities and follows guidance laid out in The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 or "the Fire Safety Order".” from the report
Cleaning and damaged equipment
seriousSome parts of the home were not clean, and a split toilet seat and torn commode covering could not be cleaned properly. Inspectors also found an area used to store food that needed a deep clean.
“We identified a toilet seat which had started to split in one bathroom, and a commode that had a torn covering which prevented them from being properly cleaned.” from the report
Quality checks missed problems
seriousThe home's audits did not identify all the safety, cleanliness and environmental problems found during the inspection. This led to a breach of the good governance regulation.
“However, we found that audits were not robust enough in identifying all areas of improvement we found on inspection and needed to be strengthened.” from the report
Repairs, appearance and storage
needs fixingSome areas showed considerable wear and tear, and wheelchairs and other equipment were stored in corridors and bathrooms. The provider said it would address these issues.
“The home in some areas showed considerable signs of wear and tear, the provider told us they had started work on redecoration of the home.” from the report
Unresolved concerns
needs fixingOne person said they had unresolved informal complaints. One relative also felt earlier concerns had not been listened to.
“One person told us they had some unresolved informal complaints and would be bringing them to the attention of the manager.” from the report
- 01What action has been completed to make sure fire evacuation drills take place regularly, and when was the most recent drill?
- 02Have the split toilet seat and torn commode covering been replaced, and how are cleanliness checks now recorded?
- 03What changes have been made to the home's audits so they identify safety, infection control and environmental problems?
- 04Where are wheelchairs and other equipment stored now, and what repairs or redecoration have been completed?
- 05How are complaints recorded and followed up, including complaints that were previously unresolved?
This was a planned comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, and the previous overall rating was Good in July 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 April 2019 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Albany House - Doncaster
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2020Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 January 2011.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
92 live-in carers within about an hour of Doncaster
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £980 to £1,260 a week. 77 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“I can honestly say without Petros I don't believe he would have lived an extra 2 years”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.