Alexandra Court Care Centre

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence the provider met people’s needs. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 54 (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 were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. Care was not always person-centred and members of staff were focussed on completing tasks rather than on people. People’s care plans and risk assessments contained limited personalised information about how people preferred care and support to be provided.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity. There was limited information recorded in care notes about recommendations made by community nurses following their visits.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats tailored to individual needs. Accessible information standards (AIS) assessments had been completed but there was no detailed information about what communication support may have been useful for people. Care plans also contained limited information to guide staff practice.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result. People's families told us they did not have access to people's care plans and did not feel listened to or involved. A relative told us, “I have been trying for so long to see [family member’s] care plan but it is always ‘later’. Does it exist?” At the time of the inspection, the management team were in the process of meeting with family members to discuss care, support and access to information. People told us members of staff knew them but newer staff were not always aware of ‘how things were done’. People reported feeling isolated.

The provider did not always make sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. There were limited opportunities for people to access engagement activities sessions. One relative told us, “[Family member] is bored, bored, bored and the activities are old and predictable when they happen.” We did observe some activity sessions when we were on-site but feedback from people indicated they wanted access to more activity opportunities. One person said, “It would be lovely to have some activities.”

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. People did not experience discrimination or inequality in the delivery of their care. There were clear policies in place to promote equality and meet diverse needs. We received no concerns from people regarding fairness or equity in the care and support they received.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. There was limited information in people's care plans about their end-of-life care wishes. People had ReSPECT forms in place but conversations and discussions had not always taken place with people and their families about end-of-life planning. Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) forms are a document created through a process involving a person, their family, and healthcare professionals to record personalised recommendations for emergency care. If a person becomes unable to make decisions for themselves in an emergency, their preferences for care and treatment, including whether to attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR), are known and respected by clinicians.