CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Albert House Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
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 16 March 2021. It looked at how the home prevented and controlled COVID-19 infections.
Inspectors found that visitors were tested, temperature checked and given protective equipment before entering. The home used isolation, small consistent staff teams, regular testing, enhanced cleaning and up-to-date infection control policies.
Inspectors were assured about infection control, including the use of protective equipment, testing, admissions, cleaning and managing outbreaks. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Visitor safety
Visitors were tested and screened before entering. They were given protective equipment and directed to avoid contact with other people in the home.
“Visitors were required to undertake a COVID 19 lateral flow test (LFT) and wait for the result, before they entered the care home.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the home clean, tidy and without unnecessary clutter. Cleaning schedules and records were completed.
“The home was clean and tidy and free from unnecessary clutter.” from the report
Staff infection control training
Staff had infection prevention and control training, regular updates and access to protective equipment.
“Staff had received Infection Prevention and Control training and were provided with workbooks and regular updates.” from the report
Protective equipment
Inspectors were assured that protective equipment was available and being used safely.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visitors currently screened and supported to use protective equipment?
- 02What infection control arrangements are now used for new admissions?
- 03How often are residents and staff tested, and what happens after a positive result?
- 04How are cleaning checks and infection control audits recorded, and what happens when a shortfall is found?
- 05How are activities and contact with relatives supported now that residents are no longer isolating in their rooms?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic; it was not a full inspection of the other areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 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, January 2018
Albert House Nursing Home was rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care, but some medicine and care records needed improvement.
This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection on 19 June 2017. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff, the manager and the provider. They reviewed care plans, medicine records, incident reports, audits, surveys and staff records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough suitably checked staff, regular safety checks, skilled care and prompt access to healthcare professionals. People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect, and were supported to keep in contact with family and take part in activities.
There were some shortcomings. PRN, or as-required, medicine instructions were not in place. Some mental capacity records were conflicting, although the provider corrected these after the inspection. People gave mixed accounts about how much they were involved in planning their care.
Safe staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Recruitment checks were completed before staff started work.
“Staffing numbers met people's needs and this ensured people were supported safely.” from the report
Activities and family contact
People were supported to take part in activities that interested them and to keep in touch with family and friends.
“People undertook activities personal to them and were supported in what they wanted to do.” from the report
Open management
Staff said they felt supported and could speak to the manager. The home used meetings, surveys and audits to review the service.
“The registered manager encouraged an open line of communication with their team.” from the report
As-required medicines
needs fixingThe home did not have protocols explaining when and why people might need PRN medicines, or how staff should recognise this need.
“However, protocols for their use were not in place.” from the report
Mental capacity records
needs fixingSome computer records did not match the outcomes of mental capacity assessments. The provider said these entries were corrected after the inspection.
“The recording of this did not always reflect the outcome of mental capacity assessments.” from the report
Involvement in care planning
minorPeople gave different accounts of how involved they were in decisions about their care. The provider said it would develop person-centred planning.
“Some people said they were involved in decisions about their care, others told us they were not actively involved.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure every PRN medicine has a clear protocol explaining when it should be given and how staff recognise the need?
- 02What checks are now used to make sure mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions are recorded consistently?
- 03How are residents and relatives involved in writing and reviewing care plans?
- 04How do you respond when someone says they do not feel treated as an adult when raising an informal concern?
This was a comprehensive, unannounced inspection of all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 January 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 Albert House Nursing Home
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- January 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2014GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 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
23 live-in carers within about an hour of North Somerset
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 £1,050 to £1,320 a week. 19 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
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.