Albert House Nursing Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

People were asked about their preferences, and these were documented and reviewed to ensure staff were aware. If concerns or problems arose, people and relatives felt able to contact members of the management team or other staff. Staff received training in equality and diversity and were alert to potential discrimination or inequalities. They aimed to address barriers to improve people’s care and provided support which met people’s preferences and needs. The provider was aware of and adhered to equality and human rights legal requirements.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Person-centred Care during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

Staff received training in equality and diversity and were alert to potential discrimination or inequalities. They aimed to address barriers to improve people’s care. For example, by providing specific food types, or observing preferences in people’s routines. The ethos and values of Albert House placed an emphasis on being a family run service which aimed to ensure people are comfortable, happy and have choices to give them a good quality of life. We saw these values reflected in the atmosphere of the service and working practices. Staff told us they treated people with dignity and respect and added that their own needs and preferences were also supported by managers and other staff within the service. For example, some staff were supported to take time for prayers and others worked flexibly to meet childcare needs.

Regular meetings were held with people who lived at the service and relatives. People were able to complete brief surveys about specific topics such as food, personal care and activities. This provided different opportunities to share views about the service.

People’s needs were assessed. This included if people had any needs relating to protected characteristics such as religious needs or culturally appropriate care. Staff respected and met people’s individual needs relating to food, beliefs, lifestyle and care choices. One person had very specific needs relating to their clothing and staff respected this and acted to ensure their needs were met. Another person who loved fish was able to use technology to observe the fish tank downstairs from their room. This demonstrated that staff had tailored care to respect and protect people’s needs and rights. People and their relatives gave consistently positive feedback. They felt they were respected, and their rights were protected. One person told us they were listened to, and changes were made, and another said, “There is always a choice of male or female carer. I don’t like a male carer now, I would rather have a female carer.”

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.