Alexander Court Care Centre Also known as 1-3977761030

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 67 (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 made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People’s needs were assessed before they stared using the service. When they moved into the service, care plans were developed and people and their relatives were involved in this process. One relative told us, “I was involved in the original care plan. [Person] has a keyworker and we have regular meetings.” Care plans were subject to monthly review so they continued to reflect people’s needs as they changed over time. For the most part plans were of a good standard, containing detailed information about how to support people. We did however find that some of the oral health care plans were not person-centred. We discussed this with the registered manager. They confirmed shortly after our inspection that they had taken steps to review oral health care plans to make sure they were person-centred.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

We observed during the lunchtime period two people were in positions which made it difficult for them to eat their meal. In particular, we saw one person lying almost horizontally in a chair struggling to eat their meal which was to their side. The person was not assessed as being at risk of choking, but it was difficult for them to eat their meal. Staff were not offering support with this. We discussed this with the registered manager who told us they would take steps to address this issue.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

The provider worked with staff and other services, such as the local authority, to help support people. Regular staff meetings were held. These enabled staff to discuss ways in which people could be best supported. The provider worked with other agencies involved in the provision of care to meet people’s needs, including when they moved between services.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People were supported to live healthier lives. Care plans covered people’s health care needs and risk assessments covered specific medical conditions such as epilepsy and diabetes. People had access to health care professionals including GPs, Tissue Viability Nurses and Speech and Language Therapists. People we spoke with confirmed they were able to see health care professionals. One relative said, “The doctor visits every Thursday and if [person] needs to see them, they are put on the list.”

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Systems were in place for monitoring and improving outcomes. For example, care plans and risk assessments were subject to monthly review so that they reflected people’s needs as they changed over time. Records were kept of care provided so that it was possible to monitor the care had been provided in line with assessed needs.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Mental capacity assessments were in place for each person addressing all aspects of their day-to-day support where decisions needed to be made. Where people lacked capacity, the provider had carried out best interest decisions involving family members. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisations were in place for some people where it was deemed this was in their best interests and they lacked capacity.