Albert residential home provides accommodation and support for up to three older adults with physical disabilities and or dementia. People had a range of support needs including personal care and assistance with moving and handling. On the day of our inspection there were two people living at the home.

There was a registered manager in post. The provider was also the registered manager. 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.

At the last inspection on 17 February 2016, we told the provider to take action on ensuring that the premises and equipment were suitable and well maintained. The registered manager had provided us with an action plan. We found on this inspection, improvements had been made and these actions have been completed.

There were sufficient staff to keep people safe. There were recruitment practices in place to ensure that staff were safe to work with people.

People were protected from avoidable harm. Staff received training in safeguarding adults. They knew how to report abuse, but a recommendation has been made to review staffs knowledge on identifying safe guarding concerns.

People’s medicines were administered, stored and disposed of safely. Staff were trained in the safe administration of medicines and kept relevant and accurate records. For people who had ‘as required’ medicine, there were guidelines in place to tell staff when and how to administer them.

Staff had written information about risks to people and how to manage these. Risk assessments were in place for a variety of tasks such as falls and moving and handling.

The registered manager had processes in place to review incidents and accidents and take action as necessary. Equipment that was in place to support people’s care was well maintained and clean.

The registered manager ensured that the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were followed. Where people were assessed to lack capacity to make some decisions, mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions had been completed. Staff were heard to ask for people’s consent before they provided care.

The provider had followed the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) to ensure the person’s rights were protected. Where appropriate applications had been made to the local authority. Improvements could be made in staff’s knowledge of the MCA.

People had sufficient to eat and drink.

People were offered a choice of what they would like to eat and drink. People’s weights were monitored on a regular basis to ensure that people remained healthy.

People were supported to maintain their health and well-being. People had regular access to health and social care professionals.

Staff were trained and had sufficient skills and knowledge to support people effectively. Staff received regular supervision.

People were well cared for and positive relationships had been established between people and staff. Staff interacted with people in a kind and caring manner.

People, their relatives and health and social care professionals were involved in planning peoples care.

People’s choices and views were respected by staff. Staff and the registered manager knew people’s choices and preferences. People’s privacy and dignity was respected.

People received a personalised service. Care and support was person centred and this was reflected in their care plans. Care plans contained information for staff to support people effectively.

There were activities in place which people enjoyed.

The home listened to staff, people’s views. There was a complaints procedure in place. Complaints had been responded to in line with the home’s policy.

The management promoted an open and

Albert Residential Home provides accommodation and personal care for up to three older people.

At the time of inspection, there were three people living at the home. This inspection took place on 17 February 2016 and was unannounced.

The service was run by a registered manager who is also the registered provider, who was present for part of the day of the inspection. ‘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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

One person who lived at the home said, “It’s nice and cosy and staff are friendly.” Another person told us that they “Try their best.” One relative told us that they were very “Pleased with the care and improvements they have noticed” in their family member since they moved into the home. One staff member told us that they were, “Very happy here and feel supported.”

There was positive feedback about the home and caring nature of staff from people who lived at Albert Residential Home.

Risks to people were not always acted upon. The registered manger had not sought the assistance of the Speech and Language Team (SALT) or a dietician to help minimise the risk of people choking while eating or drinking. Staff had limited written information about risks to people and how to manage these. We found the registered manager had not considered additional risks to people in relation to trips, storage of items such as additional hoists, commodes and choking.

Some adaptations have been made for people with mobility needs, such as rails and toilet seats. The registered manager and staff worked well to keep the feeling homely for people who lived there. It was however noted that the décor of the building looked tired and some areas were not clean. The bathroom and separate toilets were used as storage for items that the registered manager told us that they “may have a need” in the future.

Staff were not aware of the home’s contingency plan, in the event of a situation occurring that could stop the service running for example power cuts or floods. They explained actions that they would take to keep people safe in the event of a fire. People who lived at the home did not have personal evacuation plans in place.

The home did not have a robust system of auditing processes in place to regularly assess and monitor the quality of the service or manage risks to people in carrying out the regulated activity. The registered manager told us that they had assessed incidents and accidents, staff recruitment practices, care and support documentation, medicines and decided if any actions were required to make sure improvements to practice were being made. However we found no evidence or an accident record for someone who had had a fall two days before the inspection visit.

Events that needed to be notified to the Care Quality Commission had not always been made by the registered manager.

Staff had received training in safeguarding adults and were able to evidence to us they knew the procedures to follow should they have any concerns. One staff member said they would report any concerns to the registered manager. They knew of types of abuse and where to find contact numbers for the local safeguarding team if they needed to raise concerns.

Staffing levels were appropriate to meet the needs of people in the home. The registered manager had carried out appropriate recruitment checks to ensure staff were suitable to support people in the home. Staff received an induction and ongoing training, tailored to the needs of the people they supported. Staff were however seen to support people to keep them safe. People did not have to wait to be assisted.

Processes were in place in relation to the correct storage of medicine. All of the medicines were administered a

During our inspection in November 2013 we had some concerns regarding the storage of food. We also observed during our visit that one person did not receive their choice of meal.

We carried out this follow up inspection to see if the provider had made any changes which ensured that people received their first choice of meal and that they stored and reheated food appropriately.

We carried out an inspection at Albert Residential Home to look at the care and treatment provided to the people who lived there. At the time of our inspection we found that one person had lived in the house for over a year and the other two people had moved in at the beginning of November 2013.

We saw that people were treated with respect and noted that staff knocked on doors before entering a room. We spoke to all three people who used the service as well as one relative and one care professional who was involved with the home. Each person told us they felt they were treated respectfully.

We observed lunch being served during our inspection. When we asked people about the quality and the choice of the food, we received mixed responses. We had some concerns about the way the food was stored.

We saw that the provider carried out appropriate checks when they employed staff. This ensured staff were of good character and had the necessary skills and experience to do the job.

We noted the provider had made the complaints policy available to the people who lived in the home.

During our visit we saw that people were being treated with dignity and respect and people’s independence was encouraged. People we spoke to said that they were happy with the way they were treated. One person told us: “you only have to ask and before you can say anything further you’ve got it”.

We saw that people experienced safe and effective care based on detailed care plans. There were risk assessments that met individual needs and provided good guidance to staff to minimise potential risks. We saw that good nutritional care was provided in a way that met people’s needs and preferences.

People using the service were protected from abuse as the staff had appropriate knowledge and training on safeguarding adults. One person told us that if they had any concerns they would report them to the manager.

Staff we spoke to and records we reviewed, demonstrated that staff were suitably experienced, skilled and supported to ensure that people received care that met their needs. Staff received ongoing training and supervision which provided them with the skills and knowledge to meet the needs of the people they were supporting.

The provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service. The provider collected the views of families, other visitors and people who used services and they were very positive about the service. One visitor wrote that they observed how people appeared well care for and were happy.

Currently there are no people using the service. Therefore information and evidence recorded in this report were obtained from reviewing records maintained at the service and discussions with staff and the manager.