Archived: The Princess Alexandra Home

Updated 16 August 2017

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

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 risk of people who preferred to eat meals in their rooms. This inspection examined those risks, including scalding from hot meals, choking, contact with hot surfaces and unsafe eating equipment.

This was an unannounced inspection by one inspector and it took place on 7 April 2017 and 7 June 2017. There was a gap between the visits because the on-going redevelopment work and other religious observances that fell in between meant we were not able to revisit immediately.

Before the inspection, the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

We reviewed records held by CQC which included notifications, complaints and any safeguarding concerns. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us by law.

We looked around the home and observed how people interacted with staff. We looked at care records and associated risk assessments for eight people along with other relevant documentation. We looked at other records including audits, maintenance records and policies related to the running of the home. These included staff recruitment, training and supervision records, medicine records, complaint records, accidents and incidents, quality audits and policies and procedures.

During the inspection we spoke with eight people who were using the service. They told us about the care they received. We spoke with six relatives. We also spoke with 14 members of staff which included the registered manager, care manager, service manager, assistant director, business manager for hotel services, and chef manager. During the inspection we spoke with a social care professional from a local authority for their feedback.

Updated 16 August 2017

The Princess Alexandra Home is a care home that provides accommodation and personal care for up to 45 older people of the Jewish faith, some of whom have dementia. At the time of this inspection there were 45 people living in the 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.