Albany House - Tisbury

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

We reviewed 5 quality statements for this key question. People’s rights to privacy and dignity were promoted and their individuality was respected. People were encouraged to follow their preferred routines although sometimes staff availability impacted on this. There were positive interactions between people and staff and independence and choice were promoted. Staff were well supported by leaders. There were regular informal discussions, and staff rosters were developed according to staff’s availability.

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.

Some people raised concerns about staff being rude, but others said they were treated with kindness and their privacy and dignity was promoted. They gave examples of this, including when being supported with a wash or a shower. People said staff kept them well covered, and they could choose the gender of staff supporting them. People told us their wishes were always respected. Relatives were complimentary about the staff and used terms such as ‘kind’, ‘caring’ and ‘delightful’ to describe them.

Staff spoke fondly of people and said they enjoyed their role. One staff member said it was like everyone was part of a very big family who all cared about each other. Another staff member told us being kind and compassionate was natural as these attributes were integral to their role and what caring was all about. Leaders told us they had a good staff team who cared about the people they supported. They said there was always concern when a person was not very well, and staff were upset when a person passed away.

Partners were complimentary about the staff. They said staff were caring and friendly, and there was a nice atmosphere in the home.

Kind and caring interactions were observed throughout the inspection. Staff were friendly, addressed people by name and gave them time. People responded and used staff’s names, demonstrating established relationships had been built. Staff were discreet and lowered their voices when asking people if they wanted to use the bathroom. Staff always knocked on people’s bedroom doors and waited to be asked in. They called out to the person as they entered the room.

People told us staff saw them as a person and respected their individuality. They liked that staff were interested in them and their families. This included their earlier lives, occupations and hobbies. One person told us if they went out, staff always showed an interest in where they had been and what they had done. People told us individual preferences such as food choices and where they liked to eat their meals, were respected. Relatives confirmed this. One relative told us staff were very good at calming their family member if they became anxious.

Leaders told us they had a good staff team, who were committed to offering individualised care. They said staff always promoted individual choice and what each person wanted. Staff confirmed this. They said they respected people’s preferences and promoted individual choice throughout their work. One staff member said they knew what a person would choose to drink but offered alternatives in case they preferred something different.

Staff respected people’s individuality. They addressed people by name and there were many conversations about family, recent trips out and television programmes they had watched. Staff ensured people had individualised cutlery which met their needs, and their food preferences were respected. This included a staff member informing a person they had removed a certain vegetable from the lunch time casserole, as they knew they did not like them.

Care planning was used to promote people’s individuality. However, whilst some aspects of the care plans were personalised and contained detailed information, others were not so informative. Leaders told us this would be addressed during the review of all the care plans. Staff were able to give detailed accounts of people’s needs, including their preferences and what was important to them.

People told us staff promoted their independence and offered them choice. They said they were encouraged to do as much as possible for themselves, but staff would support them with anything they found difficult. Relatives confirmed this. One relative said staff encouraged their family member’s independence which was important to them, but they continued to be ‘watchful’ to ensure safety. Some people told us they enjoyed going out, but there was a reliance on their family as staffing levels did not enable external activity. Other people were content to follow their own interests within the home.

Staff told us they encouraged people to have control over their lives. This included getting up and going to bed when they wanted and choosing how they spent their day. Staff told us there was a choice of food and drink and alternatives were offered if people did not like what was on the menu. Leaders told us independence and choice were important values within the home and staff promoted these well. They said they wanted people to retain their skills and live how would have done before moving to the service.

We observed staff regularly offered people choice. This included where they wanted to sit, eat their meal and if they wanted to return to their room after lunch. Staff asked other questions such as where they would like their drink placed, or whether they wanted their bedroom door open or closed. People were offered choices of drinks and snacks mid-morning and had a choice of lunch and dessert.

Care planning considered the support people needed to remain as independent as possible. This included any assistance needed with areas such as mobility, personal care, eating and drinking. People’s preferences were generally documented within their care plan, although staff were knowledgeable and ensured choices were respected.

People told us staff were good at responding to their immediate needs. They said staff undertook any requests and generally responded to their call bell in a timely manner. Relatives confirmed this and said staff were also good at responding to any anxiety or distressed behaviour their family member experienced.

Leaders told us people rarely needed to wait for assistance as staff prioritised each person in response to their needs and preferences. Leaders told us if staff were particularly busy, they would help to minimise the risk of any delays. Staff confirmed this and told us they ensured people with fragile skin and continence issues were given priority. This was due to the detrimental effect a delay could have on their wellbeing. One staff member said people’s care was naturally staggered due to their individual preferences of when they liked to get up. Staff told us they answered people’s call bells as quickly as possible but said staffing numbers sometimes impacted on this.

Staff were responsive to people’s needs and call bells were answered in a timely manner. Staff undertook any requests people had without delay.

Staff told us leaders looked after them well and were very supportive. This included shift patterns to enable their caring responsibilities, but also day-to-day support within their role. Staff told us leaders had been very supportive with any life events and wanted them well before returning from sick leave. Leaders told us they believed supporting staff was an integral part of their role. This included listening to any challenges staff were experiencing and openly discussing possible solutions.

Staff were deployed according to their availability and external responsibilities. The rotas were completed in advance to enable staff to plan their off-duty time. There were regular discussions with leaders and good relationships had been established. However, staff had raised that there were not enough staff at times, but leaders had not investigated or addressed this. Staff told us they were encouraged to take regular breaks but used the dining room or conservatory to do so.