We carried out a review of the data available to us about Aliwal Manor Care Home on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Aliwal Manor Care Home, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
Visitors could visit their family member/friend by appointment. The separate area to the home had a window as a screen, an intercom system, and a bell that could be rung in emergencies. There were gaps between each visit to stop people encountering other visitors, staff or people from the home and to clean. End of life compassionate visits were also in place when needed.
Staff supported people to use computer tablets and phones to video call and/or speak to family and friends. People isolated in their rooms if they had been to an external health appointment or were recently admitted into the home. They remained in their rooms for 14 days.
External visitors including a health or social care professionals entered the home in line with government guidance. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) was available if needed.
Staff socially distanced from each other when on their break. Staff changed into their work clothes in the staff room and put on their PPE before starting work. Staff had internal COVID-19 training which included putting on and removing PPE safely and handwashing. Handwashing and PPE spot checks were completed on staff. Staff were bare below the elbow and were wearing a minimum amount of jewellery that promoted good infection control practice.
There were three infection control leads within the home.
Frequently touched areas such as handrails, chairs, tabletops, handles and furniture were cleaned regularly. Communal areas seen appeared uncluttered to aid with effective cleaning. Furniture in communal areas where possible, had been spread out to promote social distancing. Windows were opened to promote good ventilation.
Aliwal Manor Care Home is a residential care home providing personal care to 31 people aged 65 and over at the time of the inspection.
Aliwal Manor Care Home accommodates 32 people across four separate wings over two floors, each of which has separate facilities.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People who lived at Aliwal Manor Care Home received care from a staff team who were passionate about delivering a service based on individual needs. Staff knew each person well. People’s views were respected, and they were involved in everything that happened in the service. People were happy living there and relatives trusted the staff team to look after their family members. One relative said, “I couldn’t wish for anywhere better for [family member]”
Staff delivered care and support that was personalised. Staff were kind, caring and motivated and people, their relatives and external professionals were complimentary about the care provided. Staff respected people’s privacy, dignity and independence and encouraged people to lead their life in the way they wanted to.
Staff understood the risks to people and the measures in place to keep them safe. Systems were in place to manage people's medicines safely and to reduce the risks associated with the spread of infection.
Sufficient numbers of staff were employed to meet people's needs. Staff received training that gave them the necessary skills and knowledge to carry out their roles and meet the specific needs of people using the service.
People were supported to maintain good health. Staff made referrals to health professionals when required. Staff were kind and caring and had developed good relationships with people using the service. People were supported to have maximum choice and control over their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People had access to food and drink based on their individual choice and preferences. People had access to a wide range of activities that reflected their specific needs and interests.
Care plans were in place which guided staff to provide support that met people's needs which were in line with their preferences.
Systems were in place to monitor the service, which ensured that people's risks were mitigated, and lessons were learnt when things went wrong. There was an open culture within the service, where people and staff could approach the registered manager who acted on concerns raised to make improvements to people's care. A relative told us, “I have nothing negative to say about the home and I can’t think of anything I would want improved.”
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published 2 June 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
This inspection was undertaken by one inspector and an expert by experience of people who are living with dementia. At the last inspection on 10 October 2014 the service was rated as ‘Good’. At this inspection we found the service remained ‘Good’.
A registered manager was in post at the time of the inspection. 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.
Systems were in place to manage risks to people using the service and to keep them safe. This included fire safety.
There was sufficient staff on duty to keep people safe. A thorough recruitment and selection process was in place, which ensured staff recruited were suitable to work with people who used the service.
People received their medicines as prescribed and received care and support when they needed it from staff who had the skills and knowledge to provide safe and appropriate support.
The registered manager and staff understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People were supported to have maximum choice and control over their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People’s needs were assessed so that their care was planned and delivered in a consistent way. The registered manager and staff talked passionately about the people they supported and knew their care needs well. Staff offered people choices, for example, how they spent their day and what they wanted to eat. These choices were respected.
People were supported to maintain their nutrition and staff had the information they needed to monitor and respond to people’s health conditions.
People lived in a service where staff treated them as an individual and encouraged them to maintain relationships. People were supported to take part in activities of their choice..
The provider had a range of systems in place to assess, monitor and improve the service. Significant improvements had been made to the interior décor since our last inspection. People had been consulted on the improvements made to the premises and their choices had been respected. People, their relatives and staff were regularly asked for their feedback about the quality of the service provided. Feedback was used to recognise good practice and to drive improvements where shortfalls were identified.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
This inspection was carried out on 14 October 2014. It was an unannounced inspection and was undertaken by two inspectors.
Aliwal Manor is a registered care home which provides accommodation, support and non-nursing care for up to 32 older people including those living with dementia. The home is divided into four units over two floors. There were 30 people living at the home when we visited.
At the time of our inspection the home had a registered manager in post. 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.
At our previous inspection on 12 July 2013 we found the provider to be meeting all the regulations that we looked at.
The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation on Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and report on what we find. We found that people’s rights were being protected and DOLs applications were in progress. Staff understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). This meant that they were working within the law when they cared for people who lacked the capacity to make their own decisions. We saw that there were policies and procedures in relation to the MCA and DoLS to ensure that people, who could not make decisions for themselves were protected.
There was process was in place to ensure that people’s health care needs were assessed, so that care was planned and delivered in a consistent way. Staff were seen to support each person according to their needs. This included people at risk of malnutrition or dehydration who were being supported to have sufficient quantities to eat and drink.
We saw that staff respected people’s privacy and dignity. They knocked on people’s bedroom doors and waited for a response before entering. People told us that staff ensured doors were shut when they were assisting them with their personal care.
People confirmed they were offered a variety of chosen hobbies and interests to take part in and people were able to change their minds if they did not wish to take part in these.
There was a complaints process in place which was available in the entrance hall to people, relatives and others who used and visited the service. People confirmed that they would not hesitate in making a complaint if they needed to.
The provider had clear recruitment process in place. Records we looked at and staff we spoke with confirmed that staff were only employed after all essential checks had been satisfactorily completed.
The provider had an effective quality assurance system in place to monitor and improve the quality of care it provided. There was a programme of audits that involved people who used the service, families, health care professionals and others on a regular basis. When improvements had been identified these had been undertaken.
We saw that people had been given accurate information about the fees they would have to pay. Records showed that people had been correctly charged for the facilities and services they had received.
People said or showed us that they received all of the health and personal care they needed. Records confirmed that assistance had been provided in a safe, reliable and responsive way.
We saw that there were enough staff on duty to enable people to promptly receive the assistance they needed.
Documents and records were accurate and easy to find so they supported staff to run the service in a safe and reliable way.
People we spoke with told us they were happy living at Aliwal Manor, and they liked the staff. One person said, 'Its like home, I'm well looked after. The food is good. I can choose what I want. Nothing is too much trouble'. Staff treated people with respect and supported people to maintain as much independence as possible.
The care plans that we looked at gave staff suitable guidance for staff to follow to ensure that they were able to provide the care and support that each person needed. Risks to people had been assessed.
All staff had undergone training in safeguarding vulnerable adults. When we spoke with staff they were clear about their responsibilities to report concerns or allegations of abuse.
Staff had undergone sufficient training relevant to their role, so they were able to offer people the support they needed. Staff had received regular supervision and an annual appraisal of their development. They told us they felt supported by the manager and the staff team.
Some areas of the home had recently been redecorated and further decorating had been planned to ensure the home would be well maintained.
The provider had a complaints procedure in place. People we spoke with said they would be comfortable talking with staff should they have a complaint although they told us they had never had any reason to complain.