Alexandra Court Care Centre

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 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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

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 make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. People’s care was not always assessed and reviewed effectively and, as a result, there were instances where care was not always delivered in line with people’s care plans. People’s care plans were not reviewed regularly in line with the provider’s care plan review policy.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. There were inconsistencies in how people’s fluid intake was monitored and reviewed. We observed people’s mealtime experience and found some improvements were required. Concerns were identified about the numbers of staff available to support people to eat their meals effectively. Whilst people were offered choices of drinks and meals, people were not enthused about the meals available. The provider had recently moved to lighter lunch options with a more substantial meal at dinner time but not everyone was happy about this change. One person shared their feedback with the staff, "I can't believe we are getting beans on toast for a meal. We are not kids!!” Where people needed support with modified diets, based on clinical guidance, this was provided and people’s meals were prepared in accordance with specialist recommendations.

The provider did not always work well across teams and services to support people. They did not always share their assessment of people’s needs when people moved between different services. People's care plans contained information about them and their care needs, however, we saw evidence members of staff did not always read updates in care plans but, instead, received updates through handover notes. However, the handover notes not always sufficiently detailed to ensure continuity of care in line with care plans.

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could not always maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff did not always support people to live healthier lives, or where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. Some people, however, were supported to access community health care services and dental support where needed.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. People’s care plans and daily care notes did not always accurately reflect care provided. There were inconsistencies in recording of repositioning for people and there were also gaps in recording continence care for people.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. People's care plans recorded their consent to care and support and we saw evidence this was sometimes signed by a family member. However, we did identify timing gaps in people’s Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards documentation expiring and new applications being submitted to the local authority. We made the provider aware of these gaps and asked them to take action to mitigate the risk.