Background to this inspection
Updated
9 April 2022
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.
As part of CQC’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic we are looking at how services manage infection control and visiting arrangements. This was a targeted inspection looking at the infection prevention and control measures the provider had in place. We also asked the provider about any staffing pressures the service was experiencing and whether this was having an impact on the service.
This inspection took place on 25 February 2022 and was announced. We gave the service 24 hours’ notice of the inspection.
Updated
9 April 2022
This was an announced inspection which took place on the 20 November 2017.
We previously inspected Albany Farm Care Home on the 11 November 2016 and found two breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008. Care plans did not always reflect peoples' needs and the provider had not consistently followed robust recruitment procedures.
At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider had met the regulations.
The service provides care and support for up to six people who may have a learning disability, a mental health condition or physical disabilities. Some people using the service displayed behaviours that were challenging to others and required positive support approaches from staff to keep them and others safe. Some people could not speak to us directly due to their communication needs.
There is a registered manager at Albany Farm Care Home. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider.
Record showed the provider monitored incidents where behaviours challenged and responded promptly by informing the local authority safeguarding team, the Care Quality Commission (CQC), behavioural support team and advocacy agencies.
Staff were knowledgeable about the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and worked with advocacy agencies, healthcare professionals and family members to ensure decisions made in people’s best interests were reached and documented appropriately
People were not unlawfully deprived of their liberty without authorisation from the local authority. Staff were knowledgeable about the deprivation of liberty safeguards (DoLS) in place for people and accurately described the content detailed in people’s authorisations.
People were protected from possible harm. Staff were able to identify the different signs of abuse and were knowledgeable about the homes safeguarding processes and procedures. They consistently told us they would contact CQC and the local authority if they felt someone was at risk of abuse. Notifications sent to CQC and discussions with the local authority safeguarding team confirmed this.
Staff received training appropriate to people’s needs and were regularly monitored by a senior member of staff to ensure they delivered effective care. Where people displayed behaviours that challenged others, staff responded appropriately by using redirection approaches.
Safe arrangements were in place which reduced the possibility of infection.
Quality assurance documents demonstrated the provider had learnt lessons and was receptive to feedback.
Staff interacted with people and showed respect when they delivered care. Relatives and healthcare professionals consistently told us staff engaged with people effectively and encouraged people to participate in activities. People’s records documented their hobbies, interests and described what they enjoyed doing in their spare time.
Records showed staff supported people regularly to attend various health related appointments. Examples of these included visits to see the GP, hospital appointments and assessments with other organisations such as the community mental health team.
People received support that met their needs because staff regularly involved them in reviewing their care plans. Records showed reviews took place on a regular basis or when someone’s needs changed.
The service had an open culture where people told us they were encouraged to discuss what was important to them. We consistently observed positive interaction between staff and people.