You are here

Archived: The Princess Alexandra Home Good

This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

Reports


Inspection carried out on 7 April 2017

During a routine inspection

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 qual

Inspection carried out on 15 August 2014

During a routine inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and to pilot a new inspection process being introduced by the Care Quality Commission (CQC) which looks at the overall quality of the service.

The Princess Alexandra Home is a care home that provides accommodation and personal care for 72 older people of the Jewish faith. It is divided into two units, one of which also provides nursing care. Some of the people in the home have dementia.

This was an unannounced inspection. The service was last inspected in December 2013, and was found to be meeting the regulations we inspected.

The service had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 registered manager and staff understood and were aware of how to safeguard people they supported from abuse. Managers and staff received training on safeguarding adults, the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). The registered manager and staff understood and had a good working knowledge of MCA code of practice and DoLS.

The service ensured people’s needs were met by staff who had the right skills, qualifications and attitudes. People and their relatives described the service as good.

People and their relatives were positive about the caring attitude of staff. We saw staff treated people with respect and dignity.

We saw from people’s care records that families were involved in people’s care. People received care that was planned to meet their individual needs. They were involved in the identification of their needs, choices and preferences and how these would be met.

The registered manager and deputy manager demonstrated an understanding of their role and responsibilities, and staff told us they felt well supported. There were systems in place to monitor the safety and quality of the service provided. The service had a positive culture that was person centred, open, inclusive and empowering.

Inspection carried out on 12 December 2013

During a routine inspection

At the time of the inspection the home was providing care to sixty six people.

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.

Inspection carried out on 8, 23 October 2012

During a routine inspection

We spoke with the manager of the home, four members of staff, two volunteers and an activities co-ordinator. We also spoke with 10 people living at the home and four relatives who were visiting the home. People told us that they were able to choose what they did and that staff were "kind and caring". People also said that staff respected their privacy and dignity and one relative said "the staff have patience and treat everyone with respect". We observed staff offering people choices in relation to food, drink and activities and responding to people's requests for assistance.

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.

Reports under our old system of regulation (including those from before CQC was created)