CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Albany House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, October 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some care goals needing clearer detail.
This was an unannounced inspection. One inspector spoke with four people, several staff members and the manager. They reviewed care records, medicine records, training information and quality and safety records. They also considered feedback from local organisations.
The home supported five people at the time, although it can accommodate 10 people with enduring mental health needs. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, secure medicines management and regular safety checks. People said they felt safe and staff knew how to report safeguarding concerns.
People received support with food, healthcare and activities according to their choices. Staff were described as kind and respectful. Care plans were personalised and reviewed monthly, although some goals were not specific enough to show clearly what progress a person should make.
The overall rating remained Good, as did the ratings for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The report says there was no evidence of serious risks or concerns.
Safe staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs promptly. Staff were visible and available during the visit.
“Staffing levels continued to be appropriate to meet people's needs.” from the report
Safe medicines
Staff were trained and assessed as competent to give medicines. Records accurately showed what medicines people had received.
“Medicines administration records (MARs) accurately recorded the medicines people had been given.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People described warm relationships with a stable staff team. Staff protected people's privacy and encouraged them to remain independent.
“People and staff described kind and caring relationships having developed between them.” from the report
Choice and healthcare support
People chose what to eat and drink, and staff adapted meals for medical needs. Staff also helped people access health services and follow professional advice.
“People were supported with their nutritional needs.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The provider used regular checks and feedback from people and staff to monitor the service. Inspectors said these checks had identified and addressed issues.
“The provider continued to operate a structured approach to quality assurance.” from the report
Some goals were unclear
minorSome outcomes in people's recovery plans were not specific enough. This made it difficult to tell what the person wanted to achieve or how progress would be measured.
“Some of these outcomes were not clear.” from the report
- 01How will you make my relative's recovery goals specific and measurable?
- 02How do you make sure staffing levels remain suitable if people's needs change?
- 03How will you support my relative to attend health appointments and follow advice from health professionals?
- 04What meals and dietary choices can be provided if my relative's medical needs or preferences change?
- 05How will you involve my relative in reviewing their care plan and activities?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions; the report used a shorter format because the overall rating had remained Good since the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 October 2018 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
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 February 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
30 live-in carers within about an hour of North Tyneside
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 £1,130 a week. 26 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Petty introduced herself to Mum every time she was caring for her and responded very quickly to Mum if she was distressed in the night.”
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.