Albany Nursing Home is registered to care for up to 61 people with nursing needs and at the time of the inspection there were 59 people using the service. This included younger people with disabilities and older people with varied conditions such as dementia and complex nursing needs. The home is laid out on three floors and accommodation for people is in single rooms, except for one double room.

At the last inspection in March 2015, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

People and relatives felt safe using the service. There were enough suitably qualified staff to meet people’s needs. Safe recruitment checks were made before employing new staff. Staff were knowledgeable about safeguarding and whistleblowing procedures. People had risk assessments done and risk management plans were put in place to ensure they were kept safe while using the service. Building maintenance and equipment checks were up-to-date. Medicines were managed safely.

Staff were supported through regular training opportunities, supervisions and appraisals. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Staff were knowledgeable about what was required of them in line with the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff were aware of how to obtain consent before delivering care. People were offered a variety of food and drink and were supported to access healthcare as required.

People and relatives gave positive feedback about staff. Each person had a named care worker and a named nurse who were responsible for overseeing the care the person received. Staff demonstrated awareness of people’s care needs, respecting people’s privacy and dignity, maintaining independence and equality and diversity needs.

Staff were knowledgeable about providing a personalised care service. Care plans were comprehensive and showed people’s preferences. A variety of activities were offered which included visiting entertainers and trips outside the home. The service kept a record of compliments and complaints made and used these to make further improvements to the care provided.

People, relatives and staff spoke positively about the management of the home. The provider had systems to obtain feedback about the quality of the service and carried out various audit checks on the quality. These systems were used to make improvements to the service. Regular meetings were held with people, relatives and staff to keep them updated on service development and identify issues that needed resolving.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

We spoke to four members of staff and six people who used the service and their relatives.

We found the home appeared well-maintained with pleasant decor and several communal and private spaces. We did not find documentary evidence that people and their relatives were involved in planning care, but people we spoke to said they were involved. A relative told us, "They are very good at listening to your opinions" and one person who used the service said "They always tell you what they're doing, but it's your choice."

We observed staff interacting with people and their relatives one-to-one and in group activities. We found evidence of activities being planned within the home and in the community. Care plans and risk assessments took into account people's personal and medical history and were adaptable to reflect people's changing needs.

Visit logs were available to communicate between the home and other providers involved in people's care. One person using the service said "Their communication is good. They have my care completely covered."

The home had a safeguarding policy in place. People we spoke to said they had not received information about how to recognise and report signs of abuse. One relative said "I don't know what I'd do."

People said staff were "brilliant" and "definitely the right people for the job." We found evidence that appropriate checks had been carried out before staff started work.

People told us that the care at Albany was “outstanding”. We spoke to 12 relatives and eight people who used the service. We observed five people living with dementia and found that staff interacted with them positively and responded appropriately to their needs. One person said “I think the staff are wonderful. I don’t know what we would do without them.” Another said “staff are excellent. They are very patient.”

We observed that medicines were administered safely and regular checks were done to make sure there were no dispensing discrepancies. Medicine administration records stated whether people had any medicine allergies.

People told us that staff always gained their consent before they gave care and explained what they were going to do. We observed staff seeking consent before staff proceeded to help people with their needs.

Staff received appropriate development and were appraised regularly. We saw evidence that staff received regular training and had regular staff meetings.

We found that people’s records were up to date and reflected the individual’s current condition. There were risk assessments and care plans were person centred. There was evidence that people were assessed when they were admitted and care was planned and reviewed monthly or earlier if the person’ condition changed

People told us that they are well cared for at the home, that the staff are kind and friendly and the food is good.

We carried out this unannounced inspection on 6 and 10 March 2015.

We last inspected the home on 15 and 16 April 2014. During this inspection we found breaches to seven regulations. People were not protected against unsafe medicines management because the provider did not have appropriate arrangements in place for handling, using, dispensing and disposal of medicines. The provider had also not ensured premises and equipment were safe and fit for purpose due to inadequate maintenance. We found that standards of cleanliness and hygiene were not maintained to ensure people were protected from the risk of acquiring an infection and effective systems were not in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service and to identify, assess and manage risks. In addition, people were not protected from unsafe or inappropriate care arising from the lack of proper information about them. The provider sent us an action plan stating the steps they would take to address these issues. At this inspection, we found that the provider has taken appropriate action to meet these legal requirements.

Albany Nursing Home is registered to care for up to 61 people with nursing needs and at the time of the inspection there were 57 people using the service. This included younger people with disabilities and older people with varied conditions such as dementia and complex nursing needs. The home is laid out on three floors and accommodation for people is in single rooms, except for one double room.

There was a registered manager at the home. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

During this inspection, we found the home provided a safe environment to everybody on the premises. Building maintenance and equipment checks were up to date. Staff were knowledgeable about safeguarding and how to report concerns. Medicines were managed safely. Risk assessments had been carried out and where risks were identified appropriate risk management plans were in place. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs.

Staff received regular training and were knowledgeable about people’s care needs. The manager was aware of their responsibilities around legislation regarding people’s mental capacity. Staff had recently received training in the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. MCA is legislation protecting people who are unable to make decisions for themselves and DoLS apply to people where the state has decided their liberty could be deprived in their own best interests to ensure their safety and welfare. Although most staff were able to tell us what this was, two staff members were unable to tell us what the basic principles were. We were told there were plans to help staff to increase their knowledge and understanding in this area through further training and discussions in supervision and staff meetings.

People had access to healthcare professionals as required to meet their day-to-day health needs. Staff knew the people they were supporting including their preferences to ensure a personalised service was provided. People and their family members were involved in care planning so they could take part in the decision-making about the care they received. There was a range of interactive activities on offer for people to take part in on an individual or group basis to ensure people had their social and emotional needs met. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity.

The provider had systems to check the quality of the service provided. People and their family members were able to give feedback through satisfaction surveys, the results of which were acted upon to improve the service. People knew how to make a complaint and these were dealt with appropriately. Staff, people, and family members felt comfortable with raising concerns with the manager. Regular meetings were held with staff and for people and their family members so that concerns could be raised and dealt with and updates on the service could be given.