CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Albert Road
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe. Risk assessments, safeguarding systems, staffing, recruitment checks, infection controls and medicine records were found to be appropriate.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had completed mandatory and service-specific training. People received support with their health, food, communication and appointments, and the home worked with healthcare professionals.
- Caring?
- Good
- Interactions were polite and respectful. People were involved in care planning, supported to make choices and encouraged to be independent.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and people had choice over routines, activities and community access. Information was provided in easy-read formats and communication aids were available.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Managers were approachable and had improved oversight of the home. Feedback from people, families and staff was collected and used to plan improvements.
What inspectors found, December 2022
Albert Road rated Good; inspectors found safe, respectful and personalised care, with some maintenance still needed.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 21 November 2022. They spoke with four people, seven staff members and reviewed care, medicine, safety, recruitment and management records. They also considered information from earlier monitoring and feedback from professionals.
The home supported up to seven people with acquired brain injuries. Four people were living there during the inspection. Inspectors found people felt safe, staff were respectful, staffing was sufficient and medicines were managed safely.
Care plans were detailed and people were involved in decisions about their care. People could choose activities, meals and community access. The home supported communication needs, healthcare appointments, independence and positive risk taking.
All five areas were rated Good. This means inspectors found the home was safe, effective, caring, responsive and consistently managed at the time of the inspection. The five ratings had all improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection.
Safe medicines
Medicine records were complete and stock levels matched the records. Staff had medicine training and regular competency checks.
“Medicine administration records (MAR) were complete, with no gaps or omissions.” from the report
Enough staff
Staffing levels were sufficient to meet people's needs promptly. This included one-to-one support and help to access the community.
“Sufficient staff were available to meet people's needs promptly which included a number of one-to-one sessions” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans explained people's needs, preferences and wishes. People were involved in planning their care and making decisions.
“Care plans were detailed, providing clarity on individuals needs, likes and dislikes.” from the report
Accessible communication
The home provided easy-read information and picture cards to help people understand information and express their needs.
“Guides in a range of subjects were available in an easy read format.” from the report
Maintenance and decoration
minorInspectors found that parts of the home needed maintenance and redecoration, including improvements to en suite bathrooms. A schedule of work was in place.
“The home required some maintenance and redecoration including improvements to en suite bathrooms.” from the report
Staff meetings had dipped
minorStaff meetings had reduced recently because of a change in management. Inspectors were told that meetings had restarted and a future schedule was planned.
“Although these had dipped recently due to a change in management, staff still felt supported, and meetings had taken place along with a future schedule.” from the report
- 01Which maintenance and redecoration works, including the en suite bathroom improvements, have now been completed?
- 02What additional specialist training is being provided for staff following the recent admission mentioned in the report?
- 03How regularly are staff meetings now held, and how are staff able to raise concerns between meetings?
- 04How does the home review positive risk taking and make sure support remains safe and least restrictive?
- 05How are the pending Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards application and existing authorisations reviewed?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, with infection prevention and control also reviewed; the location visit took place on 21 November 2022. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 December 2022 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 2020
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found major progress since the previous inadequate rating, but wanted proof that safer systems would last.
Inspectors visited over three days in July 2020. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked care records, medicines, health and safety records, staff training and management systems.
The home had made significant improvements since the previous inspection. Medicines were better managed, risks were assessed more clearly, staff training had improved, and people were receiving more timely healthcare support. The home had also improved its facilities, including access to the entrance and outside seating.
The rating improved from Inadequate to Requires Improvement. The home was no longer in breach of regulations and was no longer in Special Measures. Inspectors still wanted to see that the improvements continued consistently over a longer period.
Improved medicines safety
Medicines systems were better organised, records had no gaps or omissions, and staff had their medicines skills checked regularly.
“Medicines systems were now well-organised, and people received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Better risk management
The home had introduced clearer risk assessments and safety checks for people, the building and its water systems.
“All people's associated risks, such as skin integrity, falls and safe eating and drinking was assessed and documented.” from the report
Positive care experience
People said they felt safe, and people and relatives gave positive feedback about the care and support.
“People felt safe while living at Albert Road and we received positive feedback from the people and their relatives about the care provided.” from the report
Health support
The home had improved its oversight of people's health and worked more effectively with healthcare professionals and other agencies.
“We found the service now had a robust overview of people's health and wellbeing needs.” from the report
Improved facilities
The provider had extended the lounge, installed a lift at the entrance, improved outdoor space and redecorated some rooms.
“The service installed a bespoke lift at the front entrance, this was previously steps and not wheelchair friendly.” from the report
Minor medicines recording errors
needs fixingSome handwritten medicines records had not been signed by two staff members as required by the home's checking process.
“However, we did find some minor inconsistencies of handwritten MAR's that had not been signed by two members of staff to ensure the MAR alongside the medication was correct.” from the report
Some staff did not know a smoking risk
needs fixingTwo staff members were unaware that one person had a smoking risk assessment. The manager said they should have known about it.
“However, two staff we spoke with did not know a particular person has a smoking risk assessment in place.” from the report
Management communication
minorSome staff said communication from the registered manager was not always effective. The home planned a staff meeting to address this.
“However, during our staff calls three staff members felt the registered manager's communication could be improved.” from the report
- 01How have you checked that medicines records are now signed correctly and remain complete?
- 02How do staff learn about and follow each person's smoking and other individual risk assessments?
- 03Have all emergency first aid, moving and handling, and diabetes training now been completed?
- 04What changes have you made to improve communication between managers and staff?
- 05How have you shown that the improvements found in July 2020 have continued over time?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led only; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were used in calculating the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 August 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 Albert Road
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Good.
- December 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2020Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2020InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- October 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 October 2018.
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 Manchester
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. 89 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
“She is an exemplary carer, she is knowledgable empathetic and very respectful in the home.”
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.