You are here

Archived: Alexander Lodge Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


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 visit

Inspection areas



Updated 26 September 2017

The service was safe.

Staff understood their responsibilities around protecting people from harm.

The provider had identified risks to people�s health and safety with them, and put guidelines for staff in place to minimise the risk.

People felt safe living at the home. Appropriate checks were completed to ensure staff were safe to work at the home. There were enough staff to meet the needs of the people.

People�s medicines were managed in a safe way, and people had their medicines when they needed them.



Updated 26 September 2017

The service was effective

Staff said they felt supported by the manager, and had access to training to enable them to support the people that lived there.

The requirements of the Mental Capacity Act were met. Assessments of people�s capacity to understand decisions had been recorded in line with the Act. Where people�s freedom was restricted to keep them safe the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards were met.

People had enough to eat and drink and had specialist diets where a need had been identified.

People had access to health care professionals for routine check-ups, or if they felt unwell. People�s health was seen to improve as a result of the care and support they received.



Updated 26 September 2017

The service was caring.

Staff were caring and friendly.

Staff knew the people they cared for as individuals, and valued their knowledge and experience.

People could have visits from friends and family, or go and visit them, whenever they wanted.



Updated 26 September 2017

The service was responsive.

People were involved in their care plans. These were person centred and gave detail about the support needs of people.

People had access to a range of activities that matched their interests. People had good access to the local community.

There was a clear complaints procedure in place. Staff understood their responsibilities should a complaint be received.



Updated 26 September 2017

The service was well- led.

The registered manager and provider had a clear set of values of the home, and staff provided care and support in a manner that met those values.

People and staff were involved in improving the service. The provider and registered manager regularly spoke to people and staff to make sure they were happy.

Staff felt supported and able to discuss any issues with the manager.

The manager understood their responsibilities with regards to the regulations, such as when to send in notifications.