You are here

Archived: Alexian Brothers Care Centre Requires improvement

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

We are carrying out a review of quality at Alexian Brothers Care Centre. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 12 May 2017

The unannounced inspection took place on 16 February 2017 and had been brought forward due to some concerning information received.

The Alexian Brothers Care Centre is a 74 bedded care home, providing long-term care for older people who require residential support and nursing care. The home is set within mature grounds, in a secure, gated development. On the day of the inspection there were 68 people using the service.

There was a registered manager in place 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.

The last inspection was undertaken in March 2015 when the service was rated as Good overall. During this inspection we found four breaches of the Health and Social Care Act (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 with regard to safe care and treatment, dignity and respect, complaints and good governance.

You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

People told us they felt safe at the home and we found the building and grounds to be secure.

Safeguarding policy and procedures were in place and staff were being given extra support in the area of safeguarding to help ensure timely reporting of incidents. Staffing levels were sufficient to meet the needs of the people who used the service. Staff were recruited safely through a robust recruitment programme. There was a robust induction programme and a comprehensive programme of training for all staff.

Medicines systems were robust and safe. Oxygen cylinders were not always used and/or stored safely. The fire risk assessment was out of date and some of the radiators were extremely hot and posed a potential risk to people who used the service. The registered manager agreed to ensure a new fire risk assessment was implemented. Radiator covers were installed immediately to the affected radiators. Water temperatures were tested and some were found to be very hot, presenting the risk of scalding to people who used the service.

The environment was cluttered in places and a number of notices made the environment feel clinical. The premises could have been enhanced with fewer notices, more dementia friendly signage and better lighting to help people orientate around the home.

We observed the mealtime experience on two of the units. Although there could have been some improvements to how the tables were set, we saw that staff were attentive and assisted people respectfully when needed. People told us they enjoyed the food and were given plenty choice. Food and fluid charts were not all completed as required.

The home was working within the legal requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). However, recording of capacity could have been improved.

People who used the service, and their relatives, were positive about the kindness shown by staff. We observed friendly and respectful interactions throughout the day.

We saw a few instances throughout the day where people’s dignity had been compromised. Confidentiality was also compromised by people’s personal records being kept outside people’s rooms where any visitor to the service could potentially view them.

People who used the service felt the staff were responsive to their needs and they were given choice, though some felt staff rushed them.

There were a range of activities on offer. People from the community joined in the mass at the chapel, attended the lunch club and used the hair salon. This gave people in the home the opportunity to mix with people from the locality.

No evidence was available to show that complaints were responded to appropriately. People told us they would be able to raise an issue if they need

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 12 May 2017

The service was not always safe.

People told us they felt safe at the home and the building and grounds were secure.

Safeguarding policy and procedures were in place. Staffing levels were sufficient to meet the needs of the people who used the service. Staff were recruited safely through a robust recruitment programme

The fire risk assessment was out of date and some of the radiators and some of the water temperatures were extremely hot and posed a potential risk to people who used the service. Medicines systems were robust and safe.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 12 May 2017

The service was not always effective.

The premises were cluttered, the environment felt clinical. There was a robust induction programme and a comprehensive programme of training for all staff.

We observed the mealtime experience and staff assisted people when needed. People told us they enjoyed the food and were given plenty choice. Food and fluid charts were not all completed as required.

The home was working within the legal requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

Caring

Requires improvement

Updated 12 May 2017

The service was not always caring.

People who used the service, and their relatives, were positive about the kindness shown by staff. We observed friendly and respectful interactions throughout the day.

We saw a few instances throughout the day where people’s dignity had been compromised.

Confidentiality was also compromised by personal records being kept outside people’s rooms where any visitor to the service could potentially view them.

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 12 May 2017

The service was not always responsive.

People who used the service felt the staff were responsive to their needs and they were given choice.

There were a range of activities on offer and people from the community joined in the mass at the chapel, attended the lunch club and used the hair salon. This gave people in the home the opportunity to mix with people from the locality.

There was no evidence to demonstrate that complaints were responded to appropriately. People felt they would be able to raise an issue if they needed to. The service had received a number of compliments.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 12 May 2017

The service was not always well-led.

People told us the management were approachable and staff felt well supported. Supervisions and team meetings took place on a regular basis.

A number of audits and checks were regularly carried out by the service. Where issues had been identified, there was not always recorded evidence that these issues had been addressed.

The service had good links with the local community and worked in partnership with other organisations to share good practice.