CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Albany Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home was managing infection risks, including visitors, admissions, protective equipment, testing, cleaning and possible outbreaks.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control measures were in place.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 5 February 2021. It looked at how the home was prepared to prevent and control coronavirus infections.
The home was temporarily closed to friends and family during the inspection. Inspectors found measures for visitors, social distancing, testing, protective equipment, cleaning and isolating people who tested positive.
Inspectors said they were assured about all the infection control areas they checked. These included safe admissions, use of protective equipment, testing, hygiene, outbreak management and the infection control policy.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give an overall quality rating or ratings for the other care questions.
Infection control
The home had procedures for cleaning, protective equipment, testing and isolating people who had coronavirus.
“The provider had appropriately isolated people who had tested positive for coronavirus to prevent the spread of infection.” from the report
Clean premises
Inspectors found the premises clean and noted additional cleaning of frequently touched areas.
“The premises were clean and hygienic. The provider had implemented stringent cleaning procedures including deep cleaning and cleaning of frequently touched areas.” from the report
Staff support
The provider supported staff during self-isolation and checked their symptoms before they returned to work.
“Staff were well supported. They were guided through periods of self-isolation and called prior to return to work, to check symptoms to assess whether it was safe for them to return to work.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visits arranged now, and what infection control measures must visitors follow?
- 02How do you test residents and staff, including staff returning from annual leave?
- 03How do you manage new admissions to reduce the risk of infection?
- 04What happens if someone tests positive for coronavirus, and how do you prevent an outbreak spreading?
- 05How often are infection prevention and control measures audited?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control arrangements during the coronavirus pandemic; the service was inspected but not rated and the report does not assess the other care questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 March 2021 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 2020
Albany Nursing Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring and personalised care, with a small medicines recording error and some slow call-bell responses.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 3 February 2020. They spoke with six people, one relative and eight staff. They reviewed care records, staff files and quality checks, and observed care.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were protected from abuse, had suitable risk assessments, received safe medicines support and had enough staff overall.
People and relatives described staff as kind and caring. Care plans were detailed and personalised, activities were available, complaints were handled appropriately and people were supported with health, food and end-of-life needs.
There were two points to note. Two people said call bells were sometimes answered slowly, although inspectors saw timely responses on the day. One medicines record had not been signed, but this was corrected immediately.
Personalised care
Care plans included people's preferences and the support they needed with everyday tasks. They were reviewed regularly.
“Care plans were detailed, pictorial and contained people's preferences.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives described staff as kind and caring. Staff understood how to protect privacy, dignity and independence.
“People told us staff were kind and caring.” from the report
Activities and communication
The home offered group and one-to-one activities, as well as support for different communication needs and faiths.
“A range of activities were available to people including karaoke, ball games and bingo, mobility sessions, memory games and sing-alongs.” from the report
Open management
The provider held meetings, gathered feedback and used audits to identify improvements. Staff, people and relatives gave positive feedback about the leadership.
“The provider sought feedback from people using the service, relatives and staff to identify areas for improvement.” from the report
Call-bell response times
needs fixingTwo people said staff did not always respond quickly when they used their call bell. Inspectors saw people receiving help without a long wait on the inspection day.
“Two people said staff did not always respond quickly when they pressed their call bell.” from the report
One incomplete medicines record
needs fixingOne person's medicines record had not been signed on the day of inspection. The nurse corrected this immediately, and the provider's audit system was expected to identify such errors.
“However we noted that one person's records had not been signed for the medicines administrated to them on the day of inspection.” from the report
- 01How quickly are call bells answered, and how do you check this for people who may be at risk if they wait?
- 02What checks make sure every medicines administration record is signed after medicines are given?
- 03How will you involve us in reviewing and updating the care plan if our relative's needs change?
- 04Which activities and communication support would be available for our relative's abilities, interests and preferences?
- 05How would you involve our family in decisions about healthcare and end-of-life wishes?
This was an unannounced planned inspection that assessed all five CQC questions, with the previous Good ratings remaining unchanged. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 April 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.
Every inspection of Albany Nursing Home
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2014Inspected but not rated
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Waltham Forest
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 £1,200 a week. 77 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Sidonia is a first class live-in carer whose dedication and thoughtfulness made her stay a happy experience.”
“Charity would take Nan on holidays day trips and shopping adventures”
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.