Alexander Court Care Centre Also known as 1-3977761030

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

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 had a shared vision, strategy and culture. Staff we spoke to told us how they uphold the values and ethos of the organisation in providing the best possible care. One staff member told us how the management led the service in a way that ensured staff were respected and their human rights were protected. Another member of staff said, “I love my job, I am happy here. The managers and my colleagues, they are all so friendly.”

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

The registered manager told us they had an ‘open door’ policy to make themselves available to staff. Staff told us how the management team were easy to approach and how they listened to staff ideas. One staff member told us, “I feel very supported, and I get to see my supervisor a lot. The manager is always available when they are here, and I feel like I can talk to them about anything”. A relative said of the registered manager, “If you need [registered manager] they’re there, they are always out and about, there is an assistant always in the ward as well. It is really good there, I go home knowing [person] is being looked after. It really is a good home.”

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

Systems were in place to support people to speak up. For example, the provider had both a whistleblowing and a complaints procedure in place. Staff and service user surveys were caried out which gave people the opportunity to raise any issues of concern they may have had or provide positive feedback. Staff had 1:1 meetings with a senior staff member and staff meetings were held. These gave staff opportunities to speak up and raise issues of importance to them. The registered manager told us they held twice weekly surgeries for people and relatives to come and discuss any issues they may have.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

Staff told us the service was a good place to work and that they felt valued. Many staff had worked at the home for a number of years and told us they did this because they liked working there. Staff recruitment was carried out in line with good practice in relation to equalities legislation. Policies were in place to guide practice in this area, including an equality and diversity policy.

The provider did not always have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability or good governance. They did not always act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate.

Various quality assurance and monitoring systems were in place to help drive improvements at the service. However, these had not always been effective. They had failed to identify shortfalls we found during our inspection. For example, in connection with fire safety, pressure relieving mattresses, record keeping and the easy accessibility of equipment for use in case of a medical emergency. This was a breach of Regulation 17 of the Health and Social Care Act (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2008.

Audits were caried out, for example, in relation to medicine, catering and health and safety. Surveys were carried out of staff, people who used the service and their relatives. A senior manager visited the service every 3 months to carry out an assessment of the service based on the CQC quality statements. We saw issues identified through these assessments were acted upon.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.

The provider worked with other agencies to help meet people’s various needs. For example, the registered manager attended a provider forum facilitated by the local authority which enabled care providers to share knowledge and good practice. Professional entertainers visited the home to provide activities for people. The service engaged with a range of health and social care professionals to meet people’s health care needs. The provider worked with Skills for Care who provided support with staff training needs.

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people.

There was a focus on learning and development across the service. For example, staff were provided with regular training to help them in their job. A member of staff told us, “I am getting proper training.” There was learning from accidents, incidents and safeguarding allegations. Feedback was sought from staff, people who used the service and relatives to help drive improvements at the service.