CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Albany House - Stratford-upon-Avon
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People's individual risks were assessed and managed. Medicines were administered safely, but repeated missing signatures appeared in medicine records.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had relevant induction and training. People were involved in decisions, supported with food and healthcare, and their care plans reflected their needs and goals.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff knew people well, treated them as individuals and respected their privacy, dignity, choices and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and reviewed. Staff supported people's hobbies, community involvement and changing health needs, and people knew how to complain.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The manager and staff were approachable, but audits, incident records and other checks were not consistently reliable or followed through. People also lacked call bells or another way to summon help at night.
What inspectors found, April 2019
Rated Good overall; Albany House provided kind, personalised care, but leadership checks and night-time access to help needed improvement.
This was an unannounced, planned inspection on 20 February 2019. One inspector and a specialist mental health nurse visited, spoke with people and staff, and checked care, medicine and management records.
Inspectors found enough staff, well-managed risks, safe medicine support and staff who understood safeguarding. People were involved in their care, treated with respect and supported to build independence, follow interests and use community services.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. It was rated Requires Improvement for Well-led because quality checks did not always lead to action, records were sometimes inconsistent, and people had no call bells or other way to summon help at night.
The overall rating remained Good, the same as at the previous inspection. A manager had been appointed and was applying to register with the CQC, while the provider had started improvement work.
Personalised care
Care plans were individual and focused on people's mental and physical wellbeing, goals and independence.
“Care plans contained good and clear information for staff to help them provide good and consistent care to people.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff knew people well and adapted their approach to their personality and changing mental state.
“Staff knew people well and cared about those people in their care.” from the report
Community involvement
People were supported to follow hobbies, meet friends, attend church and explore voluntary work in the community.
“The service had developed good community links and the manager told us that they were committed to reaching out to other outside organisations to benefit the people living at Albany House.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found there were enough staff to meet people's assessed needs and support planned activities.
“There were enough staff to meet people's assessed needs and support their planned activities.” from the report
Repeated medicine-record errors
needs fixingMedicine audits found repeated missing signatures and numerous errors each month. The report did not show that repeated problems were being effectively reduced.
“Medicines checks and audits were completed but there continued to be numerous errors every month.” from the report
Weak quality checks
needs fixingSome daily checks were not recorded or acted on. Incident, complaint and accident reports contained conflicting information, so inspectors could not be confident that all incidents were correctly reported.
“We were satisfied actions were taken, but not confident all incidents were correctly recorded and reported to provider level.” from the report
No registered manager at inspection
minorThere had been no registered manager since October 2017. A new manager had been appointed and was applying to register, but the application was not complete at the inspection.
“The service did not have a registered manager.” from the report
- 01Has the manager now registered with the CQC, and what leadership arrangements are in place?
- 02What action has been taken to give people a call bell or another reliable way to summon help at night?
- 03How have repeated medicine-record errors and missing signatures been reduced and checked?
- 04How are daily checks, water temperatures and food labelling now recorded and followed up?
- 05How are accidents, incidents and complaints checked to make sure the records agree and all required notifications are sent separately?
This was an unannounced, planned full rating inspection covering all five key questions, after concerns at another home managed by the provider. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 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 - Stratford-upon-Avon
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Albany House - Stratford-upon-Avon →
- July 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 December 2010.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Warwickshire
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 £950 to £1,260 a week. 77 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
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.