CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Alder Grange
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Inspectors found suitable staffing, reviewed risk assessments, and found that medicines were administered, recorded and stored safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care plans guided staff to meet people's needs and preferences, and staff followed advice from health professionals. Inspectors recommended improving the presentation of soft and textured food.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were observed treating people kindly and respectfully. People were supported to make choices, maintain privacy and keep as much independence as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- People and relatives were involved in care planning and review. There were activities, a complaints process and support based on people's preferences.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had quality checks, acted when issues were found and gathered feedback from people and relatives. Staff meetings and training were used to support improvements.
What inspectors found, February 2019
Alder Grange was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some improvement needed in the presentation of soft and textured food.
This was an unannounced planned inspection. One inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, checked care records and medicines, and reviewed how the home was managed.
All five areas were rated Good: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. Inspectors found enough safely recruited staff, safe medicines management, clean surroundings and care plans that reflected people's needs and choices.
People were treated with kindness and respect. They were supported to stay independent, join activities, access healthcare and be involved in planning their care. Inspectors recommended improving how pureed or textured food was presented.
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment and safe systems for storing, administering and recording medicines.
“There were enough staff available who were deployed effectively to ensure people received support when they needed it.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff were seen offering comfort, listening to people and protecting their privacy and dignity.
“We observed caring interactions between people and staff. For example; people were comfortable approaching staff.” from the report
Personalised support
People and relatives helped plan care, and staff knew people's preferences and diverse needs.
“People and their relatives were involved in the planning and reviewing of their support.” from the report
Good oversight
The home used audits, spot checks, feedback and staff meetings to monitor care and identify improvements.
“There was a quality assurance system in place, which the registered manager followed in practice.” from the report
Food presentation
needs fixingInspectors found that pureed food needed to be presented in a more appetising way. They recommended seeking guidance on soft and textured foods.
“We recommend the provider seeks guidance on the presentation of soft and textured foods.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to the presentation of pureed, soft or textured food since the inspection?
- 02How will you assess and meet my relative's individual nutritional and dietary needs?
- 03How are my relative's care plan and preferences reviewed when their needs change?
- 04What activities would be suitable for my relative, and how can they choose whether to take part?
- 05How will you support my relative to access healthcare professionals when needed?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five quality areas, with the home providing personal care and accommodation to 19 people at the time. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 February 2019 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Alder Grange
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 December 2010.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Staffordshire
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £980 to £1,230 a week. 85 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“We particularly appreciate the companionship Dawn gives in the evenings when she plays cards and Scrabble with my mother.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.