CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at The Albany Care Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe, and medicines were managed safely. However, some risks were not recorded properly, and people and staff gave mixed views about staffing levels.
- Effective?
- Good
- This improved from Requires Improvement at the last inspection. Inspectors found good assessments, staff training and support, food and drink provision, healthcare referrals, and support under the Mental Capacity Act.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not covered by this focused inspection. Its previous rating was carried forward when calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not covered by this focused inspection. Its previous rating was carried forward when calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Records were still not always complete or correct. Audits had not identified some problems, and action plans did not always have clear or met deadlines.
What inspectors found, August 2023
The Albany Care Home remains Requires Improvement, with a continued breach over incomplete records and weak quality checks.
Inspectors visited without notice on 13 and 20 July 2023. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care records, medicines records, recruitment files, audits, incidents and complaints.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Effective. People said they felt safe, medicines were given as prescribed, staff received training and support, and people enjoyed the food. Inspectors also found good support with choices, nutrition and healthcare.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Well-led. Some records were still incomplete or incorrect. Quality checks had not found these problems, and action deadlines were missing or not met. The home remains Requires Improvement overall and this is the second consecutive inspection with that rating.
People felt safe
People said they felt safe and staff knew how to report safeguarding concerns. The home had systems for responding to abuse concerns.
“People told us they felt safe from abuse living at The Albany.” from the report
Medicines were managed safely
People received their medicines as prescribed. Inspectors saw medicines being given correctly and found accurate records.
“People received their medicines as prescribed, and the service had safe medicine storage systems in place.” from the report
Good food and mealtimes
People had a choice of home-cooked food and could eat where they preferred. Staff knew people's food and drink preferences.
“On the day of the inspection we observed a positive dining experience.” from the report
Staff support and training
New staff received an induction and shadowing. Existing staff had access to supervision and appraisal meetings and said they felt supported.
“We found staff now had access to supervisions and appraisals which were used to develop and review their practices.” from the report
Respect for choices
Inspectors found that people were supported to make choices and that best-interest decisions were made when needed. Staff understood the Mental Capacity Act.
“People's rights to make their own decisions were respected and people were in control of their support.” from the report
Incomplete risk records
seriousSome risks were not properly identified or recorded. One person's falls risk was not assessed, and a dehydration screening tool was incomplete.
“We found risks to people's well-being were not always identified.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousThe provider's audits did not find some record problems. Some improvement actions had no clear deadline or had missed their deadline, so the provider remained in breach of Regulation 17.
“The provider's quality assurance systems were not always effective and not used to drive improvement.” from the report
Staffing pressures
needs fixingPeople and staff gave mixed feedback about staffing. Staff were continuously busy on the inspection day, and the provider said staffing would be increased after the inspection.
“Whilst the planned staffing levels were met, staff were continuously busy.” from the report
Environment needs improvement
needs fixingInspectors found bad smells, a stained carpet and areas needing refurbishment. The provider had identified these issues but some action deadlines had passed.
“During the inspection, the home had malodours on the first floor.” from the report
- 01What has been done to make sure every person's falls, dehydration and other risks are recorded correctly?
- 02How will you check that care records are complete and accurate, and who reviews the results?
- 03What staffing changes were made after the inspection, especially for the HUB beds and at night?
- 04Has the stained carpet been replaced and have the malodours and other environmental problems been resolved?
- 05What deadlines are in the current improvement plan, and how will you show that they have been met?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 August 2023 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 2022
The Albany Care Home was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, but care records and management systems were not reliable enough.
Inspectors visited without notice on 24 and 31 May 2022. They spoke with 14 people, seven staff members, the registered manager and the provider. They reviewed care records, medicines records, recruitment files and the home's management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Caring and Responsive. People generally felt safe and cared for. Medicines were given as prescribed, staff supported people with choices, and activities were available. Inspectors also found that infection prevention arrangements were suitable.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Effective and Well-led. Care records were not always accurate or up to date. Important information from other professionals was not always recorded or shared clearly. The provider's audits had not always found problems or ensured that planned improvements were completed.
The overall rating of Requires Improvement means the home was not consistently meeting the standard expected. The report says the provider had to send CQC a plan explaining what it would do, and CQC would check that action was taken.
Safe medicines
People received medicines as prescribed. Staff were trained and their competence was checked, while records showed no gaps or omissions.
“People received their medicines as prescribed and the service had safe medicine storage systems in place.” from the report
Kind, knowledgeable staff
Staff knew permanent residents well and supported people with choices, dignity and independence.
“Staff knew permanent residents well and were passionate about ensuring people felt valued and cared for.” from the report
Activities and social life
The home offered a broad programme of activities, and people could choose whether to take part.
“A full programme was advertised and showed a good range of activities on offer.” from the report
Choice and consent
Staff supported people to make decisions and followed the Mental Capacity Act principles when people could not make particular decisions themselves.
“People's rights to make their own decisions were respected and people were in control of their support.” from the report
Care records were incomplete
seriousRecords did not always reflect people's current needs, the support being given or advice from other professionals. This could affect the consistency and safety of care.
“Records were not always accurate, complete and contemporaneous in respect of each person.” from the report
Management checks were not effective enough
needs fixingAudits were carried out, but they did not always identify shortfalls. Actions already identified were not always recorded properly or completed.
“These systems were not always effectively operated” from the report
Staffing pressures
needs fixingThe home had long-standing nursing, domestic and maintenance vacancies. Agency nursing staff were used, but consistent agency cover could not always be achieved.
“The provider had struggled to recruit permanent nursing staff and domestic staff.” from the report
Privacy and dignity
needs fixingStaff did not always knock before entering people's rooms, and rooms were often left open during the day.
“Staff were not always consistent with respecting people's privacy and dignity.” from the report
End of life planning
needs fixingPeople receiving end of life care did not always have plans recording their wishes. Care records also did not always show the care and support being provided.
“People receiving end of life care did not have specific plans in place detailing their wishes.” from the report
- 01How will you make sure every person's care plan and risk assessment reflects their current needs and professional advice?
- 02How do you record and share safeguarding information with all staff, including agency staff?
- 03What progress has been made in recruiting permanent nursing, domestic and maintenance staff?
- 04How are you checking that audit actions are completed and that the same problems do not happen again?
- 05How will you record people's wishes and care needs for end of life support?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control; the Safe rating remained Good, while Effective, Caring and Responsive were inspected for the first time for this newly registered service. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 August 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.
Every inspection of The Albany Care Home
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- August 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2022Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2021Insufficient evidence to rateSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- July 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 31 July 2020.
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
38 live-in carers within about an hour of Oxfordshire
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 £1,300 a week. 32 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 was v competent and confident and we felt our mum was safe in her care. She supported us through a difficult time.”
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.