Alexander Court

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

This is the first assessment for this service under a new provider. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

We received mixed feedback from relatives regarding involvement and support in care discussions. For example, one relative told us, ‘I feel really involved in their care, especially when they came out of hospital recently.’ Another relative told us, ‘I haven’t had any discussions about their care plan.’

A person told us, ‘Some staff work with people who have dementia, I have to tell them that I don’t have it, please don’t treat me like I do.’ We observed one person being brought their favourite drink after lunch, the person told us they know what I like.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

People received support from external healthcare professionals when required. Referrals were made to various healthcare teams including District nurses, SALT (Speech and Language therapist), GP’s and Falls team.

We observed healthcare professionals visiting people at Alexander Court Care Home.

The provider generally supplied appropriate information in formats which were tailored to people’s needs. Most of the relatives we spoke with praised the communication of the staff team. One relative told us, “The communication has been good, and I get regular updates regarding [Person].”

However, one relative told us that they were not informed when incidents happened and the communication from the home could be better.

The service supported people’s communication needs, for example menus were displayed in picture form and word form to support people with their meal selection.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

People were given opportunity to make suggestions through regular resident’s meetings. We saw meeting minutes with requests from people which had been actioned. For example, people wanted more arts and crafts. We observed arts and crafts being completed for Valentines Day.

The service conducted surveys with staff, people and relatives. The changes made from the surveys were displayed in the home as ‘You said, we did,’ posters.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

For example, people were individually assessed and if they required equipment to enable them to sit out of bed and or used to promote their ability to leave their room they received this support. The equipment used was maintained safely to enable people to move around the home and be comfortable.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

We found people’s care plans identified what was important to them and how they wished to be supported. For example, people who wished to be supported by only female or male carers was identified so the person did not have to continuously request their preference.

During our assessment we observed positive interactions, people appeared comfortable when engaging with staff.

Staff had received training in equality and diversity. This meant staff had knowledge and understanding about how to support everyone to feel valued and respected.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Future planning formed part of people’s care plans. For example, people’s preferences for end-of-life care and wishes regarding ‘do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation’ (DNACPR) were recorded in their care plans.