Archived: The Princess Alexandra Home

The home is currently going through a major redevelopment. The original building was divided into two units; Newland House and Edmond House. This is being re-developed to make way for a new home. The registered manager explained that the entire home will not be demolished until the new home is built. Currently a small section of the home has been demolished, including Newland House. People from Newland House have since been supported to move to Edmond house, which accommodates up to 45 people.

This inspection was prompted in part by notification of an incident following which a person using the service died. This incident is subject to a police investigation and as a result this inspection did not examine the circumstances of the incident. However, the information shared with CQC about the incident indicated potential concerns about the management of risks related to that incident. This inspection examined those risks.

We saw that risks were appropriately managed. Risks to people’s health and well-being had been identified. These were reviewed regularly to ensure appropriate action was taken to mitigate the risk.

Where accidents and incidents had occurred these had been appropriately documented and investigated. Relevant action plans had been met. This process ensured risks to people were reduced.

People were protected from the risk of abuse because staff had a clear understanding of the safeguarding process. Comprehensive vetting checks were carried out on new staff to make sure they were suitable to work with people who needed care and support.

People’s medicines were handled safely. There were suitable arrangements for the recording, storage, administration and disposal of medicines in the home.

Staff supervisions, appraisals and staff meetings all happened regularly. Staff spoke highly of the management. They were confident they could raise any issues, knowing they would be listened to and acted upon.

People had access to health care professionals to make sure they received appropriate care and treatment. We saw that the home followed advice given by professionals to make sure people received the care they needed.

Staff treated people with dignity and respect. People were supported with care and compassion. Staff understood the need to protect people's privacy and dignity. People told us staff knocked on their doors before they could enter their rooms.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. We found the home to be meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). 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.

People were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts of fluids and encouraged to maintain a balanced diet. We saw that menus were very varied and a choice was offered at each mealtime. Staff supported people who required help to eat and drink and special diets were well catered for.

People were supported to lead a full and active lifestyle. Activities were personalised. People were supported to develop their skills and pursue their hobbies and interests.

People received care that reflected their likes, dislikes and preferences. The care plans made reference to people's wishes and how they wanted their care needs to be met. This was supported by relevant documentation and tools.

Complaints were investigated and lessons learnt from them. These were assessed to see if any changes were needed to minimise the risk of similar concerns being raised and to improve the quality of the service.

The home had systems in place to continually monitor the quality of care and people were asked for their opinions and action plans were developed to address shortfalls. In addition, the home had a quality assurance system in place and gathered information about the quality of the service from a variety of sources including people who used the service and other agencies.

People who used the service received appropriate care and support that met their individual needs and they were treated with dignity and respect.

There were processes in place to protect people who used the service from harm and abuse. The staff were trained to recognise the signs of abuse and to report concerns in accordance with the home's procedures.

There were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people’s needs.

Records kept were fit for purpose and held securely.

People were protected from any risk of abuse as the home had appropriate procedures in place to respond to any concerns about a person's welfare. Staff had also received appropriate training and were able to demonstrate an appropriate understanding of safeguarding issues and knew how to report any concerns that they had. Staff had also received a range of other training and support which kept them up to date with the information they needed to carry out their duties. There were also appropriate systems in place to support staff and ensure their suitability to care for people in the home.

People and their relatives told us that they knew how to complain if they had any concerns and that any issues raised were addressed promptly. We saw records that confirmed this and showed that people's complaints were taken seriously and responded to appropriately.