You are here

Archived: Alexandra Care Home Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 14 June 2016

This inspection was unannounced and took place on 16 May 2016. At our last inspection on 20 and 21 April 2015 we asked the provider to make improvements to ensure there were enough staff to meet people’s needs. . The provider sent us a report explaining the actions they would take to improve. At this inspection, we found improvements had been made. We also asked the provider to make some improvements in other areas of their service. These covered medicine management, the meal experience for people, the responsiveness of staff to support people’s needs, the stimulation on offer to people and staff support and the quality monitoring systems in place. At this inspection we saw that improvements had been made in all these areas of concern.

The service was registered to provide accommodation for up to 40 people. People who used the service had physical health needs and some were living with dementia. At the time of our inspection 35 people were using the service.

There was 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.

The provider determined the staffing levels on the number of people living in the home and the level of support they required. Staff had received training in dementia which they told us had increased enhanced the support they were able to offer and increased their knowledge. Other training was on-going and offered as directed from audits or through staff requests. Relatives had told us they felt people who used the service were safe and staff understood their role in ensuring people were protected from abuse or poor practice.

We saw that the provider and manager understood their responsibilities in complying with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Where people lacked capacity to make certain decisions, appropriate assessments had been completed and recorded how w how people were supported to make those decisions. Where people were being restricted of their liberty in their best interests, the appropriate authorisations had been applied for.

. Everyone we spoke with felt the changes being made at the home were positive and had improved people’s experience of care. We saw that people were responded to in a kind and friendly manner and staff respected their decisions. Risk assessments were in place to ensure people’s safety was maintained.

Medicines were managed safely and in accordance with good practice. People received food and drink that met their nutritional needs and had a choice of the foods they liked. Staff made referrals to healthcare professionals in a timely manner to maintain people’s health and wellbeing.

Staff were caring in their approach and they created a warm homely environment which people told us they liked and enjoyed. People felt confident they could raise any concerns with the provider and manager. There were processes in place for people to express their views and opinions about the home. The provider and manager had systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 14 June 2016

We saw and relatives told us they felt their relations were safe and staff knew how to recognise and report potential abuse. Risks to people’s health and welfare were identified and managed to keep them safe. There were enough staff available to meet the needs of people and medicines were managed in a safe way There were recruitment practices in place to checked staff’s suitability to work with people.

Effective

Good

Updated 14 June 2016

Staff received training and an induction that enabled them to support people effectively. The principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were followed. When people lacked capacity, decisions were made in people’s best interests. When people were being restricted this had been considered and the correct authorisations were in place. People were encouraged to make choices about their food and the provider ensured they received a nutritional balanced diet. Referrals were made to health professionals when needed to ensure people maintained good health.

Caring

Good

Updated 14 June 2016

Staff knew people well and had positive caring relationships with them. They encouraged people to make choices about their day. Staff ensured people’s dignity was respected. People were supported to maintain relationships which were important to them.

Responsive

Good

Updated 14 June 2016

People had the opportunity to participate in activities they enjoyed. People received personalised care from staff who knew people’s likes and dislikes. There was a system in place to manage concerns or complaints.

Well-led

Good

Updated 14 June 2016

People were encouraged to share their opinion about the quality of the service to enable the registered manager to identify where improvements were needed. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities and were given guidance and support by the management team. Systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service provided and make improvements