CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Alderton House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe and relatives agreed. Staff understood safeguarding, medicines, risks, infection control and incident reporting, and staffing levels were found to meet people's needs.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs, health and goals. Staff had relevant training and worked with health professionals, although the constant door alarms interrupted the calm atmosphere and end-of-life training had not yet been completed.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff understood individual communication styles and supported people to make choices, keep relationships and develop independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Support was personalised and focused on people's goals and quality of life. People were helped to communicate, take part in activities, visit family and use local community facilities.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Managers were visible, approachable and involved people, relatives and staff in improving the service. Audits, reviews, feedback and staff training supported a culture of learning and improvement.
What inspectors found, October 2022
Alderton House is rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care and strong support for independence, with minor issues around door alarms and end-of-life training.
This was the first ratings inspection since the service registered in 2020. It was unannounced and took place over four days in September 2022. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care, staffing and management records.
The home supported eight people in one house, with places for up to nine autistic people and people with a learning disability. Inspectors found that people were safe, treated with kindness and supported to make choices, develop skills, use local services and maintain relationships.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means inspectors found consistently good care and management at the time of the inspection. It is not an Outstanding rating, and the report still notes some areas to improve.
Choice and independence
People were supported to make choices and take part in everyday activities. Staff focused on what people could do and helped them work towards personal goals.
“People were supported to have choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors found a warm atmosphere where staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. People were involved in decisions about their care.
“People received kind and compassionate care from staff who used positive, respectful language which people understood and responded well to.” from the report
Communication support
Staff understood people's individual ways of communicating, including body language, sounds, Makaton, pictures and symbols. This helped people express their wishes and feelings.
“Staff had very good awareness, skills and understanding of individual communication needs, they knew how to facilitate communication and when people were trying to tell them something.” from the report
Good health support
Staff noticed changes in people's health and worked with health professionals. Inspectors reported examples where this led to people receiving important and lifesaving treatment.
“Staff knew people extremely well and this had meant that on two occasions staff recognising small changes in people's mood which led to people receiving lifesaving health treatment.” from the report
Door alarms
minorThe constant sound of door alarms interrupted the calm atmosphere. The manager said the new system could not be temporarily switched off.
“Although there was a calm atmosphere in the home this was interrupted by the constant door alarms sounding as people moved in and out of their bedrooms.” from the report
End-of-life training
needs fixingStaff had not completed end-of-life training. The manager said training would be sourced, particularly because two people had experienced serious health issues during the previous year.
“The registered manager told us that due to the age of the people supported staff had not completed end of life training.” from the report
Record storage
minorInspectors found the records were accurate and up to date, but reminded the manager that personal records must be stored securely.
“We discussed with the registered manager that all personal records such as daily records must be stored securely.” from the report
- 01What has been done about the constant door alarms, and do they still interrupt the calm atmosphere?
- 02When was end-of-life training completed, or when is it scheduled for staff?
- 03How are personal records, including daily records, stored securely?
- 04How will you support my relative's individual communication style and personal goals?
- 05How will my relative be supported to access activities, family visits and local community facilities?
This was an unannounced first ratings inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control; there was no previous rating to carry over. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 October 2022 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.
What inspectors found, April 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control measures were in place.
The inspection took place on 9 March 2021 and was announced in advance. It was a targeted inspection during the coronavirus pandemic, focused on infection prevention and control.
The home had measures for visitors, including temperature checks, health questions, handwashing, personal protective equipment and COVID-19 testing. Staff had training in using protective equipment, and the home had enough supplies.
Inspectors were assured that the home was managing testing, isolation, social distancing, cleaning, admissions and possible outbreaks. People were supported to keep in touch with family and take part in activities.
Visitor infection controls
Visitors were screened, asked to wash their hands and given PPE. They were also asked to complete a COVID-19 test.
“On arrival at the home visitors had their temperature taken, completed a health questionnaire and declaration.” from the report
PPE and staffing
The home had enough PPE and staff had been trained to use it safely. Staff also worked flexibly so agency staff were not needed.
“All staff had received training in the correct use of PPE, and how to take it off and put it on safely.” from the report
Testing and isolation
People living in the home and staff were tested regularly. Anyone with symptoms was tested immediately and isolated while waiting for the result.
“If anyone had symptoms of COVID-19 they were tested immediately and isolated until the results were received.” from the report
Family contact
People were supported to keep in regular contact with family and friends through video calls.
“People were supported to have regular contact with their families and friends via video calling.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection prevention and control arrangements are in place now for visitors?
- 02How often are people living in the home and staff tested, and what happens if someone has symptoms?
- 03How do you make sure staff use PPE correctly and safely?
- 04How are people currently supported to keep in touch with family and friends?
- 05How often are frequently touched surfaces cleaned, and which cleaning products are used?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; it was not a full inspection of all five quality areas and the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 April 2021 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 Alderton House
3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- September 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 September 2020.
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
17 live-in carers within about an hour of Cambridgeshire
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 £1,020 to £1,200 a week. 14 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
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.