CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Albert House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about visitors, shielding, testing, hygiene, outbreak management and the infection control policy. They were only somewhat assured overall and signposted the provider to resources for further development.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- This area was not assessed in the report.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in the report.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in the report.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in the report.
What inspectors found, December 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control arrangements, with some areas needing further development.
This was an announced inspection on 10 November 2020. It was part of a CQC review of infection prevention and control in care homes during the coronavirus pandemic.
The inspectors found good practice in areas including protective equipment, staff training, testing, social distancing and visits. The home had also updated its business continuity plan and provided activities and a sensory space to support people's wellbeing.
The inspectors were assured about most infection control arrangements, but only described themselves as somewhat assured overall. They signposted the provider to guidance to develop its approach in some areas. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give a Good, Requires improvement or Inadequate rating.
PPE and staff training
Staff had access to the protective equipment they needed and had been trained to put it on and remove it safely.
“Staff had access to all required Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and had received training in donning and doffing procedures.” from the report
Infection control arrangements
Inspectors were assured about several practical infection control measures, including testing, hygiene, social distancing and managing outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Safer visiting
The home provided garden visits with limits on numbers, temperature checks and infection control measures.
“Visits were limited, temperatures checked, and infection control measures followed.” from the report
Updated planning
The provider had put guidance and policies in one place and updated its business continuity plan for the pandemic.
“The Business Continuity Plan had also been updated to reflect the Covid-19 pandemic.” from the report
Wellbeing activities
The home had created a sensory space and offered activities such as arts and crafts and gardening.
“People's wellbeing had been prioritised.” from the report
Some areas needed development
minorInspectors were only somewhat assured overall about infection prevention and control. They signposted the provider to guidance and resources to improve its approach in some areas.
“We have signposted the service to resources and guidance to develop their approach in some areas.” from the report
- 01Which parts of your infection prevention and control approach did the CQC say needed further development?
- 02What changes have you made after being signposted to infection control guidance and resources?
- 03How are garden visits and other visits managed now, including testing, temperature checks and protective equipment?
- 04How do you support residents' wellbeing when activities or visits are restricted?
- 05Where can I see the current infection prevention and control policy and business continuity plan?
This was an announced thematic inspection focused on infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; the service was inspected but not rated and the report does not assess the other four key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 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, September 2017
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found that financial decisions were not always managed properly and rated Effective Requires Improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 24 August 2017. One inspector observed care, spoke with staff and the management team, and checked care, medicines, staffing and other records. All eight people living at the home were observed during parts of the day.
The home remained Good overall, as it was at the previous inspection in July 2015. Inspectors found people were safe, treated with kindness, supported with food and healthcare, and helped to take part in activities and make choices.
The main shortfall was in managing people's money. Records of spending were kept, but shared costs were sometimes uneven and there was not enough evidence of best-interest decisions for people who could not consent to these arrangements. The management team said it had stopped the varying charges and would put proper records in place.
Safe care and medicines
Staff understood safeguarding and individual risks. Medicines were administered safely, recorded clearly and reviewed regularly.
“People received their medicines when they needed them and in a safe way.” from the report
Kind and respectful support
Staff knew people well and responded to their communication and comfort needs. People were supported to make choices and maintain their dignity.
“Staff provided care and support in a caring and meaningful way.” from the report
Food and healthcare
People had food and drink choices and were supported with complex eating and drinking needs. The home worked with healthcare professionals and kept health information for each person.
“People had a choice of food, and had enough to eat and drink.” from the report
Activities and personalised care
Care plans reflected individual preferences. People took part in activities such as day care, films, aromatherapy, music and outings.
“People were given opportunities to participate in meaningful activities.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The management team used regular audits and a service improvement plan to monitor care and make changes.
“Systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service provided and drive continuous improvement.” from the report
Managing people's money
needs fixingSome people paid different amounts for the same shared activity or taxi arrangements. There was no recorded best-interest decision to show that these arrangements were appropriate for people who could not consent.
“However, improvements were needed to ensure people's finances were managed in line with Best Interest decision making processes.” from the report
- 01Have best-interest decision records now been completed for each person's financial arrangements?
- 02How are shared activity and taxi costs divided now, and how do you make sure no one pays more than their fair share?
- 03What evidence can you show that people or their representatives are involved in decisions about activities and spending?
- 04How many staff vacancies are there now, and how do you maintain consistent care when bank or agency staff are used?
- 05What changes were made after the inspection's findings about financial management?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, using observations, discussions and records because some people could not describe their experiences verbally. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 September 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 Albert House
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- September 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 November 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
88 live-in carers within about an hour of Bedford
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. 76 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“We can all fully relax around Nyarai and she feels like part of our family, which is no mean feat!”
“She handled the new situation in front of her with such professionalism and I felt I could trust her 100%.”
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.