Attention: The information on this website is currently out of date and should not be relied upon..

Care Services

carehome, nursing and medical services directory


Albert House Nursing Home, Weston Super Mare.

Albert House Nursing Home in Weston Super Mare is a Nursing home specialising in the provision of services relating to accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care, caring for adults over 65 yrs, dementia, learning disabilities, mental health conditions, physical disabilities, sensory impairments and treatment of disease, disorder or injury. The last inspection date here was 16th January 2018

Albert House Nursing Home is managed by Yeoman Care Limited.

Contact Details:

    Address:
      Albert House Nursing Home
      19 Albert Road
      Weston Super Mare
      BS23 1ES
      United Kingdom
    Telephone:
      01934622869
    Website:

Ratings:

For a guide to the ratings, click here.

Safe: Good
Effective: Good
Caring: Good
Responsive: Good
Well-Led: Good
Overall: Good

Further Details:

Important Dates:

    Last Inspection 2018-01-16
    Last Published 2018-01-16

Local Authority:

    North Somerset

Link to this page:

    HTML   BBCode

Inspection Reports:

Click the title bar on any of the report introductions below to read the full entry. If there is a PDF icon, click it to download the full report.

19th June 2017 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

This inspection took place on 19 June 2017 and was unannounced. Albert House is registered to provide nursing and personal care and accommodation for up to 38 people. On the day of our inspection there were 35 people living at the service.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the home. 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 home is run.

Medicines were in the main managed safely. However, PRN (as required) protocols were not in place. PRN protocols provide information for staff on when and why people might require additional medicines and should also include information for staff on how to recognise when people might need them.

People’s rights were upheld under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. However the computer software led to some conflicting recording which the provider rectified following the inspection.

The provider had met their responsibilities with regard to the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). DoLS is a framework to approve the deprivation of liberty for a person when they lack the mental capacity to consent to treatment or care and need protecting from harm. People can only be deprived of their liberty so that they can receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).

There were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified staff employed at the service. The provider's recruitment process ensured that only staff deemed suitable to work at the home were employed. Staff did not commence working in the home until all pre-employment checks had been satisfactorily completed.

Environmental checks had been undertaken regularly to help ensure the premises were safe.

People were supported to maintain good health as staff had the knowledge and skills to support them. There was prompt access to external healthcare professionals when needed.

Staff supported people in a respectful, kind and caring way and involved them as much as possible in day to day choices and arrangements. Enabling relationships had been established between staff and the people they supported. We observed that people's privacy and dignity was respected at all times.

People undertook activities personal to them and were supported in what they wanted to do. They maintained contact with their family and were therefore not isolated from those people closest to them.

Staff felt well supported and said that they would not hesitate to speak to the manager if they needed to. The registered manager encouraged an open line of communication with their team.

The provider had systems and processes for identifying and assessing risks to the health, safety and welfare of people who use the service.

9th October 2014 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

This inspection took place on 19 June 2017 and was unannounced. Albert House is registered to provide nursing and personal care and accommodation for up to 38 people. On the day of our inspection there were 35 people living at the service.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the home. 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 home is run.

Medicines were in the main managed safely. However, PRN (as required) protocols were not in place. PRN protocols provide information for staff on when and why people might require additional medicines and should also include information for staff on how to recognise when people might need them.

People’s rights were upheld under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. However the computer software led to some conflicting recording which the provider rectified following the inspection.

The provider had met their responsibilities with regard to the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). DoLS is a framework to approve the deprivation of liberty for a person when they lack the mental capacity to consent to treatment or care and need protecting from harm. People can only be deprived of their liberty so that they can receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).

There were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified staff employed at the service. The provider's recruitment process ensured that only staff deemed suitable to work at the home were employed. Staff did not commence working in the home until all pre-employment checks had been satisfactorily completed.

Environmental checks had been undertaken regularly to help ensure the premises were safe.

People were supported to maintain good health as staff had the knowledge and skills to support them. There was prompt access to external healthcare professionals when needed.

Staff supported people in a respectful, kind and caring way and involved them as much as possible in day to day choices and arrangements. Enabling relationships had been established between staff and the people they supported. We observed that people's privacy and dignity was respected at all times.

People undertook activities personal to them and were supported in what they wanted to do. They maintained contact with their family and were therefore not isolated from those people closest to them.

Staff felt well supported and said that they would not hesitate to speak to the manager if they needed to. The registered manager encouraged an open line of communication with their team.

The provider had systems and processes for identifying and assessing risks to the health, safety and welfare of people who use the service.

1st August 2013 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

There were comprehensive care planning arrangements in place. These provided information and guidance to staff about people's health and social care needs. These arrangements could be improved by the completion of a specific skin integrity care plan. People told us staff were caring and supportive and their needs were being met. We observed staff acting professionally, sensitively and respectfully whilst assisting people with their care.

We saw there were the necessary arrangements for the management of risks associated with infection. However there were no specific infection control audits as recommended by the latest department of health guidance . Staff demonstrated a good understanding of good practice around infection control.

Monitoring and auditing of medicines were in place to ensure medicines management was effective and safe. Action had been taken in response to a pharmacy audit in relation to some prescribed medicines. There were inadequate storage arrangements which meant that the effectiveness of medicines could be affected.

We looked at how care staff were deployed because of comments made to us by care staff. We saw care staff were undertaking tasks which impacted on their availability to meet people's needs effectively.

3rd January 2013 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

People told us they had an opportunity to discuss the care they needed and raise any concerns about the quality of the care being provided in the home. We found that people's wishes and choices were respected and staff supported people in a professional manner.

We found that people's care needs had been assessed and reviewed so that care plans accurately reflected the health and social care needs of the person. However we found that people's health and welfare were potentially at risk because of failures to record the completion of care tasks.

People told us they felt safe in the home and how staff were, "kind and thoughtful". We found that staff had a good understanding of their responsibilities in relation to reporting any concerns they had about possible abuse. All staff had completed safeguarding of vulnerable adults training so that they had the knowledge and skills to respond to any concerns or allegation about possible abuse.

We found that staff received the necessary level of training so that they could perform their role in a professional and competent manner. We found a failure with the providing of one to one supervision but noted new arrangements had been put in place in an attempt to improve the one to one supervision of staff in the home.

We found that the provider had effective systems to monitor and review the quality of care provided in the home.

25th January 2011 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

People that use the service made positive comments that the staff are caring and helpful, and overall it is a good home and it’s a lovely place. People made positive comments that they felt the rooms were nicely decorated.

People told us ‘’we stay in the lounge to watch TV, as we don’t have to be in our room all day’’.

People told us they felt safe and were very well looked after ‘’especially at night when the staff look in to see if I am ok’’.

Another person told us they liked to be independent and do get taken out sometimes. “I can go out but need to have someone with me, we sometimes go to the park”.

People did tell us that they sometime had to wait for bells to be answered and sometimes were left in bed waiting for a shower.

People told us that they get enough to eat and drink with many commenting that the food is very nice and there is always a choice.

We have asked the provider to make some improvements in three areas in order to sustain compliance with all of the essential quality and safety standards.

When peoples needs have changed staff need to demonstrate that this is recorded.

All relevant checks and recruitment procedures need to be complied with.

 

 

Latest Additions: