CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Albert House Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed. They found effective PPE use, suitable cleaning and ventilation, safe admissions, and arrangements for testing and vaccination.
- 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, April 2021
Albert House Residential Home was inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection prevention and control arrangements during the pandemic.
The CQC carried out an announced, targeted inspection on 24 March 2021. It looked specifically at infection prevention and control in response to the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors found plentiful PPE, trained staff, safe PPE use and regular cleaning. The home had suitable arrangements for social distancing, visitors, admissions, testing and vaccination.
People were supported to stay in contact with relatives and friends. The home was calm and clean, but this inspection did not give an overall quality rating.
Infection control
There were plentiful PPE supplies, staff had infection control training, and PPE was used and disposed of safely.
“We were assured the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Clean and suitable environment
The premises were clean and hygienic, with enhanced cleaning, good ventilation and space arranged to support social distancing.
“The premises had a good level of cleanliness and was hygienic throughout.” from the report
Family contact
People could stay in touch with relatives and friends, including through arrangements for designated visitors.
“People were supported to stay in contact with their relatives and friends.” from the report
Preparedness
The provider had up-to-date infection control policies, regular audits, a business contingency plan and pandemic-related risk assessments.
“The provider's infection prevention and control policies and procedures were up to date and audits had been carried out on a regular basis.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How have your infection prevention and control arrangements changed or been maintained since the inspection on 24 March 2021?
- 02How do you currently manage visitors and help residents stay in contact with relatives and friends?
- 03How do you make sure PPE is available, used correctly and disposed of safely?
- 04How do you manage admissions safely and monitor people's health and wellbeing?
- 05When were your infection control policies, audits and pandemic risk assessments last reviewed?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, recorded under Safe; it did not provide an overall rating or assess the other areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 April 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, November 2017
Albert House Residential Home was rated Good overall, but inspectors found that safety systems needed improvement after serious falls-related incidents.
Inspectors visited without notice on 03 November 2017. They spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff. They reviewed care records, staff files, medicines records, audits and information about two serious incidents.
The home was rated Good overall. Effective, caring, responsive and well-led care were all rated Good. The safe rating was Requires Improvement because records after falls were not complete, one person at risk of choking was not always closely observed during meals, and there was no business contingency plan.
Inspectors found many positive features. People generally felt safe, staff were trained, medicines were managed safely, care was personalised and relatives were able to raise concerns. The home had started making changes, including recruiting another care worker and introducing new post-falls observation records.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff speaking to people calmly and supporting their dignity, privacy and independence.
“We observed staff engaged with people in a caring and relaxed way.” from the report
Safe medicines practice
Medicines were administered safely. Records were clear, audits were completed and controlled medicines were securely managed.
“We saw staff administered medicines safely and followed best practice for the administration of medicines.” from the report
Personalised support
Care records included people's needs, preferences and risks. People and relatives were involved in decisions about care where appropriate.
“The care records had been developed where possible with each person and their family where appropriate, identifying what support they required.” from the report
Good management oversight
The home used regular audits, meetings and surveys to monitor care and act on issues found.
“The registered manager and provider had auditing systems to assess quality assurance and the maintenance of people's wellbeing.” from the report
Food and healthcare
People were offered choices of meals and drinks, and staff supported access to healthcare professionals.
“We observed regular snacks and drinks were provided between meals to ensure people received adequate nutrition and hydration.” from the report
Incomplete checks after falls
seriousWhen professionals advised staff to observe people for 24 hours after a fall, records did not show when or how those observations had been made. The home said it would introduce new records, and later sent evidence that changes had been made.
“However we found that where staff had been recommended to observe an individual following a fall, they had not kept records to demonstrate how they had monitored the person.” from the report
Monitoring during meals
seriousOne person at risk of choking was sometimes seated alone during meals. Inspectors said this could increase the risk because observations were not robust.
“However; we found one person who was at risk of choking had at times been sat alone in one area of the home during meal times.” from the report
Mixed views about staffing
needs fixingSome people and relatives felt staffing levels were not always consistent. The home was recruiting an additional care worker in response to this feedback.
“Before the inspection we had received concerns about insufficient staffing levels at the home.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to record and carry out observations after someone falls?
- 02How do you make sure people at risk of choking are observed closely throughout meals?
- 03Has the additional care worker been recruited, and how do you decide how many staff are needed each day?
- 04Has the business contingency plan been completed, including arrangements for emergency accommodation after an evacuation?
- 05How do your audits check that the improvements identified after the inspection are still being followed?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, prompted by two incidents with serious impact involving falls and related risk management. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 November 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 Residential Home
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Albert House Residential Home →
- November 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Albert House Residential Home →
- December 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 9 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
85 live-in carers within about an hour of Lancashire
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. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
“Thanks to Tracy, Dad was always immaculately dressed and clean, his meals were all home cooked and nutritionally well balanced and his home was always kept really clean and tidy.”
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.