Alexandra Court Care Centre

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 50 (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 treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity. We observed some interactions where members of staff were kind and caring. However, on the whole, members of staff were task focussed and did not always interact with people or have conversations with them. People we spoke to told us members of staff were “Ok” but it was hard to understand some of them and they did not stop and chat at all.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics. There was limited evidence of people being supported to get involved in activities. We did observe an activity session taking place on the day of inspection but information from care notes did not evidence activities and engagement were the norm. Visiting times for families were flexible and we did observe family members supporting people at mealtimes. Members of staff were task-focussed but we did observe some improvement in engagement on the second day of inspection following our feedback to the management team.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. People’s independence was not always promoted and they were not always supported or encouraged to make choices about their care and lifestyle. One person told us, “Yes, it’s mostly ok here. It is good job I like watching TV as there is nothing else to do now.”

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. People's immediate needs were not always met. We saw evidence in care plans, care notes and observations people were not always repositioned or supported with their continence needs in a timely manner. This was as a result of how staff were deployed across each unit in the care home.

The provider did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care. Staff morale in the care home was low as a result of inconsistent management and leadership. A member of staff told us about how they felt, “[The running of the service] is up in the air at the moment. [Members of the management team] are doing a fantastic job and the best they can. The staff morale is through the floor, but once we get the new manager in, we will probably start getting on even keel.” The provider had appointed a new manager who was going to register with CQC. They were on their induction when we visited the care home and started fully in their leadership role shortly after we inspected. The appointment of a new manager was an opportunity for changes and improvements to be made and embedded into practice.