CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Alderson House
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Risks were not always assessed, recorded or reduced. Hoists and slings had not been serviced for a short period, and protocols for medicines used when needed were not always in place.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- Staff were trained and knew people's needs, but records about consent, capacity, best-interest decisions and food and fluid monitoring were inconsistent or incomplete.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind, caring and respectful. People and relatives said staff involved them in decisions and respected their privacy, dignity and choices.
- Responsive?
- Good
- People had choice and access to activities, communication support and complaints processes. However, care plans did not always record detailed personal routines, interests and histories.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The provider and manager were open and staff felt supported. However, quality checks had not identified or fixed several shortfalls, and accurate care records were not always kept.
What inspectors found, May 2023
Alderson House rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, responsive care but gaps in risk records, medicines processes and oversight.
This was the first inspection since the service registered. It was unannounced and took place on 14 and 20 February 2023. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, looked around the home and checked care, medicine, staffing and management records.
Inspectors found staff were kind, respectful and responsive. There were enough staff, meals were viewed positively, activities were available and people received support with healthcare and end of life care.
However, risk assessments and care plans were not always complete or up to date. Medicine protocols and storage records were not always complete. Records about food and fluid intake, consent and capacity were also inconsistent.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe, Effective and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement, while Caring and Responsive were rated Good. This means the inspection found some good care, but limited assurance that safety, records and management systems were consistently reliable.
Kind and respectful staff
People, relatives and a healthcare professional gave positive feedback about staff relationships. Inspectors saw positive interactions and people appeared comfortable with staff.
“Staff were kind, caring and respectful. Relatives told us, "Staff are really good, very nice and helpful” from the report
Staffing and safeguarding
There were enough staff to meet people's needs promptly. Staff understood how to recognise and report safeguarding concerns.
“There was sufficient staff to keep people safe and to meet their needs in a timely manner.” from the report
Choice and activities
People were involved in decisions about their care and could choose how to spend their time. A wide range of activities was available, including individual activities for people who did not want to join groups.
“A wide range of activities were available for people to participate in if they wished which promoted people's social and mental well-being.” from the report
End of life support
Relatives spoke positively about the support given at the end of people's lives. Staff worked with healthcare professionals to help maintain comfort and dignity.
“Staff provided compassionate care to people at the end of their lives and this extended to their families.” from the report
Risk assessments and care plans
seriousSome risks, including risks linked to catheters, were not covered by suitable care plans or assessments. This meant staff did not always have written guidance to manage those risks.
“People were placed at risk of harm by the failure to assess and mitigate risks to people's health, safety and wellbeing.” from the report
Medicines and monitoring records
needs fixingStaff administered medicines safely, but guidance for medicines given when needed was missing in some cases and medicine storage temperature records were incomplete. Food and fluid records were also poorly completed, affecting the management of malnutrition and dehydration risks.
“However, we found these were poorly completed and meant risks of malnutrition and dehydration could not be effectively managed.” from the report
Quality assurance
seriousThe home's audits had not identified or dealt with several problems. Shortfalls in care planning, risk assessment and records continued even where the provider's systems had already identified some issues.
“The provider had failed to ensure governance systems were robust and effective to identify and address shortfalls in the service to maintain compliance with the regulations.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to ensure every person's risks, including catheter-related risks, have a current care plan and risk assessment?
- 02How do you now record and check medicines given when needed, and medicine storage temperatures?
- 03How do you make sure food and fluid monitoring records are completed and acted on promptly?
- 04How are consent, capacity and best-interest decisions recorded and reviewed, including any Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards conditions?
- 05What action has been completed from the inspection action plan, and how do managers check that improvements are lasting?
This was an unannounced first inspection covering all five key questions, including the premises and care provided; it did not examine the circumstances of the reported volunteer incident. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 May 2023 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 Alderson House
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- May 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2022
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 April 2022.
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
16 live-in carers within about an hour of East Riding of Yorkshire
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 £1,030 to £1,420 a week. 14 can care for a couple. 7 years' experience on average.
“She was always 'just present enough': attentive, available, kind and engaging, but without ever over-stepping any boundary”
“What truly stands out is how mindful and attentive she is to all of my medical needs, always going above and beyond to ensure I’m comfortable and well cared for.”
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.