Archived: Prince Alfred Residential Care Home

Prince Alfred is a residential care service that provides accommodation and personal care for up to fifty people. It accommodates people across two floors, each of which has separate facilities. At the time of our inspection, there were 46 people living at the home.

People's experience of using this service and what we found

People using this service benefitted from an outstandingly caring service and truly felt that Prince Alfred was their home.

We received overwhelmingly positive feedback on how staff were supportive and went above and beyond to get care just right for people. People considered Price Alfred as, ''a very special place'' and ''a home from

home.''

People and their relatives had complete confidence in the staff who took care of them. People received care from staff who were exceptionally caring and had developed genuine relationships with the people they were caring for. Staff were kind and compassionate and knew people's individual needs, routines and preferences well.

People were supported in such a way that allowed them maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the home supported this practice.

People participated in activities and pastimes which were meaningful to them, both in the local and wider community. Staff took the time to get to know what people enjoyed doing and were pivotal in the deliverance of individualised activities and pastimes.

People were treated with the utmost dignity and respect. Staff provided support where required but took great care to encourage and maintain people's independence. People's protected characteristics, such as

gender, cultural and spiritual needs were both valued and respected.

Feedback about the management of the home from people, their relatives and staff was positive. The registered manager adopted a hands on approach to the deliverance of care, in addition to managing the home. The manager encouraged a culture of person centred and compassionate care, and this was evident throughout every member of the staff team.

Staff were supported in their role with appropriate training and supervision. Most staff had received additional training to meet the specific needs of the people they were caring for.

Regular checks and audits were carried out to determine the quality and safety of the environment and the care being provided. Risk to people was appropriately assessed and measures were put in place to support

people safely, whilst still respecting their freedom.

The registered manager and registered provider had met their legal requirements with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). They promoted a person centred and transparent culture within the service.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Rating at last inspection

At our last inspection, the service was rated "Good." (Report published January 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the rating of the last inspection.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

Prince Alfred is a care home registered to provide personal care and accommodation for up to 50 adults. The service is located in the Wavertree area of Liverpool and it is close to local shops and public transport routes. Accommodation is provided over three floors and upper floors can be accessed via a stair case or passenger lift. The home is fully accessible to people who are physically disabled.

At the time of the inspection visit 47 people lived at the home.

At the last inspection in July 2013 the service was meeting the requirements of the regulations that were inspected at that time.

There was a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.

People told us they felt safe and contented at Prince Alfred care home. Risk assessments were in place to protect people and reduce needless risks to them. The registered manager had procedures to protect people from abuse and unsafe care. Staff were familiar with these and had received training in safeguarding adults. They knew to take prompt action to ensure people’s safety if they became aware of or suspected a safeguarding concern. We observed staff provided safe, patient and prompt care during the inspection. A relative told us, “All the staff are friendly and helpful both to visitors and residents, nothing is too much trouble.”

Recruitment and selection was carried out safely. Appropriate checks were made on prospective staff before they were allowed to work in the home. This reduced the risk of employing unsuitable people. Staff had received training in care which gave them the skills and knowledge to provide support to people. There was a low turnover of staff so staff were familiar with people’s care needs and preferences. Another relative said, “The Staff are friendly, caring and, in my experience are always doing their best to ensure that the people in their care are given the best possible help.”

We looked at how the home was staffed. Most of the people and relatives we had contact with said there were enough staff available and they responded promptly to requests for support. However three people who lived at Prince Alfred or their relatives said they sometimes had to wait for assistance.

People we spoke with told us staff were caring and supportive. They said staff monitored their health needs, sought assistance and made appointments with other professionals promptly. A relative said, “We are always informed almost immediately of any changes to care, minor heath issues or about a visit from the GP.”

Staff managed medicines competently. People told us staff gave them their medicines correctly and when they needed them. We saw medicines were given as prescribed and stored and disposed of correctly.

People we spoke with said staff were caring and respectful and supported them to remain as independent as they could be. People felt staff spent time with them, listened to them and assisted them as they needed. One person said, “The staff are wonderful.” A relative told us, “I would most definitely recommend this home to my family and friends. I am assured that they would receive the best care and attention from a staff team that really do care and work hard to provide individuals what they want and need.”

The environment was maintained, clean and hygienic. People told us the home was always clean and tidy.

People told us they were offered different meal choices and they were all good.” Breakfast was served throughout the morning and although other meals were usually at set times people could delay having their meal if they wished. A relative said, “The food is fantastic. The staff often order extra food products that my [family member] specifically likes.”

Staff understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). This enabled staff to work within the law to support people who may lack capacity to make their own decisions.

Staff recognised the importance of social contact, companionship and activities and the effect on people’s well-being. There was a varied programme of activities available throughout the day. Also staff engaged in frequent conversations with people and encouraged them to get involved in activities.

Care plans were personalised, involved people and where appropriate their relatives and were regularly reviewed.

People told us they knew how to raise a concern or to make a complaint if they were unhappy with something. They said staff were easy to talk to and encouraged them to express any ideas or concerns.

There were procedures to monitor the quality of the service. The registered manager sought people’s views and those of relatives and staff in a variety of ways and dealt with any issues of quality quickly and appropriately.

People described staff as caring and they told us staff responded quickly if they needed support. People's comments included: "The staff are brilliant, they are very caring" and "The staff are lovely, very kind and helpful.'

We also spoke with a small number of visiting relatives. They gave us good feedback about the service which indicated to us that they felt the standard of care was good.

We found that people's medicines were being stored safely and people got their medication at the right time and when they needed it.

Staff told us they felt appropriately trained and well supported to carry out their roles and responsibilities and we saw that staff had been provided with a good level of training since our last visit.

The quality of the service had been checked on a regular basis and people's views about the service had been sought as part of the checks.