Archived: Alexander Lodge

Updated 26 September 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 was planned to check 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 took place on 12 July 2017 and was unannounced.

Due to the small size of this home the inspection team consisted of one inspector.

Before the inspection 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. This enabled us to ensure we were addressing potential areas of concern at the inspection.

The provider had 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. This information was reviewed to see if we would need to focus on any particular areas at the home.

We spoke with four people who lived at the home and four staff which included the registered manager and the provider. We also used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us. We observed how staff cared for people. We also reviewed care and other records within the home. These included four care plans and associated records, three medicine administration records, two staff recruitment files, and the records of quality assurance checks carried out by the staff.

At our previous inspection in April 2015 we had not identified any concerns at the home.

Updated 26 September 2017

Alexander Lodge is a care home service without nursing, and is registered to accommodate up to 12 older people some of whom may be living with dementia. The accommodation is a converted period property; and is arranged over two floors with six bedrooms on each floor. There is a private garden with a patio at the rear of the property. Communal space consists of a lounge area and a small dining room/kitchen. At the time of our inspection seven people lived here.

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 home was decorated and adapted to meet people’s needs. Flooring was smooth and uncluttered to aid people’s mobility needs. The home had a homely feel and reflected the interests and lives of the people who lived there. Some of the decoration looked tired, such as doors and skirting boards; the management had a plan to address this once building work on a room was completed.

The inspection took place on 14 July 2017 and was unannounced.

There was positive feedback about the home and caring nature of staff from people who live here.

People were safe at Alexander Lodge. There were sufficient staff deployed to meet the needs and preferences of the people that lived there. Staffing levels changed to reflect the support needs of people.

Staff understood their duty should they suspect abuse was taking place, such as notifying the local authority safeguarding team or the police. This would ensure action was taken to protect people.

Risks of harm to people had been identified and clear plans and guidelines were in place to minimise these risks, without restricting people’s freedom. As a result people were able to take part in ‘risky’ activities that they enjoyed.

The provider had carried out appropriate recruitment checks to ensure staff were suitable to support people in the home. Staff received a comprehensive induction and ongoing training, tailored to the needs of the people they supported.

People received their medicines when they needed them. Staff managed the medicines in a safe way and were trained in the safe administration of medicines.

Staff understood the support that each person would need to get safely out of the building in an emergency. Regular safety checks were completed on fire detection systems, and equipment used to support people.

Staff had regular training to keep their skills up to date. They felt supported in their roles, which enabled them to give effective care to people.

People’s rights under the Mental Capacity Act (2005) were met. Assessments of people’s ability to make specific decisions had been completed. Staff asked people for their permission before they provided care.

The staff had an understanding of the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The registered manager had submitted applications in accordance with the act, due to the fact that some people were under constant supervision, and could not leave the home if they wanted to.

People had enough to eat and drink, and received support from staff where a need had been identified.

People were supported to maintain good health as they had access to relevant healthcare professionals when they needed them. People’s health was seen to improve due to the care and support staff gave, such as recovering from illness and operations.

The staff were kind and caring and treated people with dignity and respect. Good interactions were seen throughout the day of our inspection, such as staff talking with them and showing interest in what people were doing. People’s knowledge and experience were valued by staff. People looked relaxed and happy with the staff. People could have visitors from family and friends whenever they wanted.

Care plans were made with the people. They gave a good level of detail for staff to reference if they needed to know what support was required. People received the care and support as detailed in their care plans. Details such as favourite foods and activities in the care plans matched with what we saw on the day of our inspection, and with what people told us.

People had access to activities that met their needs. Activities were based on people’s interests, and made them feel part of the local community. The staff knew the people they cared for as individuals, and had supported them for many years.

People knew how to make a complaint. No complaints had been received since our last inspection. Staff knew how to respond to a complaint should one be received.

Quality assurance records were kept up to date to show that the provider had checked on important aspects of the management of the home. Records for checks on health and safety, infection control, and internal medicines audits were all up to date. This was a small family owned business so the provider visited the home on a daily basis to support people and to ensure a good standard of care was being provided.

People had the opportunity to be involved in how the home was managed. Regular house meetings took place and people felt their ideas and opinions were valued by the management.

People lived in a relaxed and happy home. A person said, “I have been living happily here for 10 years, it says it all. I was lonely and didn’t get out to see anyone before I came here. It’s all better now.”