CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at T/As Albemarle Court Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- People were kept safe and there were enough staff, but records of repositioning, wound care and equipment checks were incomplete. Fire safety equipment checks had not been completed for two months.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff were trained and experienced. People were supported with food, drink, healthcare and legal decision-making, although some care plans did not refer consistently to current best practice.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated kindly and with dignity. Staff listened to people's wishes and supported their independence, although private space outside bedrooms was limited.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans recorded people's preferences and staff provided activities and support with relationships. Some older documents needed to be archived so staff could clearly see the most up-to-date information.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager and director were approachable and understood their responsibilities. Quality checks were in place, but the report says reviews of risk records needed to be more thorough.
What inspectors found, March 2020
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, responsive care, but safety records and fire checks needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection in February 2020. Inspectors spoke with people, a relative, staff and managers. They reviewed care records, staff files, training records and safety records.
People were cared for by enough staff and said they felt safe. Staff managed medicines safely overall, kept the home clean and responded quickly when people needed help. However, records about risks, wound care and pressure sore prevention were not always complete. Fire safety equipment checks had also not been done for two months.
Inspectors found good care in the other areas. Staff were kind and respectful. People's choices, food, activities, healthcare and complaints were generally well supported. The home was rated Good overall, but Safe was rated Requires Improvement.
The overall rating was unchanged from the previous inspection. Safe had also been rated Requires Improvement previously, while the other four areas remained Good.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough suitably experienced and qualified staff to keep people safe. Staff responded quickly to call bells and requests for help.
“There were enough suitably experienced and qualified staff in place in keep people safe.” from the report
Kind and dignified care
People liked the staff and were treated with kindness, respect and dignity. Staff supported people to make choices and remain as independent as possible.
“We observed caring, respectful and dignified interactions with people.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were supported to take part in activities and spend time with others. The home also supported contact with family and friends.
“We observed activities taking place throughout the day and people and staff interacted well and people seemed to enjoy them.” from the report
Open management
People, relatives and staff spoke positively about the management team. Inspectors saw a calm and friendly atmosphere.
“People, relatives, staff and management all got on well together and this led to an open, inclusive and empowering environment to live, visit and to work in.” from the report
Incomplete safety records
seriousRecords did not always show the care staff had provided, including when people had been moved to reduce pressure sore risks. This could lead to inconsistent care.
“Staff did not always complete people's records in enough detail to reflect the actions they had taken.” from the report
Fire safety checks missed
seriousChecks of fire safety equipment and fire alarms had not been completed for a two-month period before the inspection. The director said this would be addressed immediately.
“However, we noted for a two-month period these had not been completed.” from the report
Some medicine temperature checks missing
needs fixingA locked medicines trolley in the lounge did not have its temperature checked. This could affect whether medicines remain effective.
“Checks of the temperature of this trolley were not carried out to ensure medicines were stored at their recommended temperature.” from the report
Fluid records not totalled
minorPeople at risk of not drinking enough had their intake recorded, but the daily amounts were not totalled. This made it harder to identify quickly whether someone was drinking enough.
“We did note that the amount they had drank each day was not totalled, which would make it more difficult to quickly identify whether a person was drinking enough.” from the report
Care plans needed updating
needs fixingSome care plans did not refer consistently to current best practice. Older documents also needed archiving so staff could find the most current information.
“Care records contained limited reference to current best practice standards and guidance when care plans were formed.” from the report
- 01How are you now checking and recording repositioning, wound care and pressure-relieving equipment?
- 02Have fire alarm and fire equipment checks been brought fully up to date, and how are missed checks prevented?
- 03How are medicines stored in the lounge trolley, and how often is its temperature checked?
- 04How do you make sure staff use only the current care plans and that older documents are archived?
- 05How do you record and review daily fluid totals for people at risk of dehydration?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall quality and safety of the care home. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 March 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, August 2017
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, responsive care, but medicines safety needed improvement.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 13 June 2017. They spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and a GP. They also checked care records, medicines records, staff training and quality checks.
The overall rating was Good. Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Good. The Safe rating was Requires Improvement because medicines records were incomplete and a medicine trolley was left unsecured during medicine rounds.
People were protected from abuse, there were enough staff, and care plans helped staff manage risks. Inspectors also found kind care, support with food and health needs, activities, and systems for people and relatives to give feedback.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff treating people kindly and respectfully. Staff knew people's preferences and supported privacy and independence.
“We saw staff were kind and caring to people when they were supporting them.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors saw staff available when people needed help. Staff said staffing levels were enough to meet people's needs safely.
“On the day of our visit we observed there were a number of staff readily available to meet the requests and needs of people.” from the report
Good care planning
People and relatives were involved in planning care. Plans included people's preferences and were reviewed when needs changed.
“Care plans were adjusted to meet people's changing support needs, so that staff had access to up to date information” from the report
Activities and interests
The home had a dedicated activities coordinator. Inspectors saw people taking part in individual activities linked to their interests.
“People were supported to follow their interests and take part in social activities.” from the report
Management and quality checks
People, relatives and visitors could give feedback. The home used surveys, meetings, audits and weekly checks to monitor quality.
“There were systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the home.” from the report
Medicine records were incomplete
seriousSeven gaps were found where staff had not signed to confirm medicines had been given. This created a risk that a medicine could be given twice.
“We looked at people's medicine administration records (MARs) and found seven gaps where staff had not signed to say medicines had been given to people.” from the report
Medicine trolley was left unsecured
seriousStaff left the keys in the medicine trolley several times while giving medicines. This created a risk of unauthorised access, although the provider dealt with it immediately.
“This meant there was the risk people could have had unauthorised access to the medicines.” from the report
Complaints had not been tested
minorNo complaints had been received in the previous 12 months, so inspectors could not assess how well complaints would be handled in practice.
“The registered manager told us they had not received any complaints in the last 12 months and so we were unable to assess how well complaints would be responded to.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure staff sign medicine records at the time each medicine is given?
- 02What checks now make sure medicine trolley keys are never left in the trolley during medicine rounds?
- 03What action was taken after the seven unsigned medicine records were found?
- 04How are people's care plans reviewed when their needs or preferences change?
- 05How can residents and relatives raise a concern, and how will the home keep them informed about the outcome?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and was the first inspection after the provider's legal entity changed. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 August 2017 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 T/As Albemarle Court Nursing Home
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at T/As Albemarle Court Nursing Home →
- August 2017GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at T/As Albemarle Court Nursing Home →
- April 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 19 April 2016.
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
75 live-in carers within about an hour of Nottinghamshire
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. 63 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
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.