CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Alexander House Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, July 2019
Alexander House Care Home was rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care, with some records and medicine storage needing improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 15 May 2019. Inspectors spoke with 13 people, two relatives and staff. They reviewed care records, medicine records, recruitment and training files, incident and complaint records, and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and were happy with their care. Staff knew people well, treated them respectfully and supported their health, nutrition, medicines, choices and activities.
Inspectors found some areas to improve. One prescribed thickener was stored in an unlocked kitchen cupboard. Some best-interest decisions and a capacity assessment for a sensor mat were not recorded. Care plans varied in detail, and information about end-of-life wishes was limited.
Kind, respectful staff
People and relatives spoke positively about the staff. Inspectors saw staff being patient, warm and respectful, while protecting people's privacy and dignity.
“Staff interactions with people were warm, friendly and caring.” from the report
Staff knew people well
Many staff had worked at the home for years. Inspectors saw staff working together and responding promptly when people needed help.
“Many of the staff had worked at the home for many years including the registered manager.” from the report
Good health and nutrition support
People received their medicines when needed, and staff worked with health professionals. Meals reflected people's preferences and nutritional needs.
“People's health care and nutritional needs were well managed and they received their medicines when they needed them.” from the report
Good leadership
The home was organised and had regular checks on quality. Staff said they felt supported and understood their responsibilities.
“There were effective systems in place to monitor and assess the quality of the service including monthly audits.” from the report
Unsecured prescribed thickener
seriousA prescribed thickener was kept in an unlocked kitchen cupboard where people could access it. The manager said immediate action would be taken to store it securely.
“However, a prescribed thickener for one person was kept in an unlocked kitchen cupboard where it could be accessed by people living in the home.” from the report
Incomplete capacity records
needs fixingSome best-interest decisions were not recorded. There was also no capacity assessment or best-interest decision recorded for a sensor mat being used by one person.
“We also found there was no capacity assessment or best interest decision recorded for a sensor mat being used for one person.” from the report
Limited end-of-life information
needs fixingSome discussions about end-of-life care had taken place, but records did not contain much information about people's wishes and preferences.
“We saw some discussions had taken place with people around end of life care, however, information about people's wishes and preferences was limited.” from the report
Care plans varied in detail
minorCare plans were individualised and reviewed, but some were less detailed than others. New documentation was being introduced to improve this.
“Care plans were individualised, however the level of detail about people's needs and preferences varied.” from the report
- 01How was the prescribed thickener secured after inspectors found it in an unlocked kitchen cupboard?
- 02How do you now record capacity assessments and best-interest decisions, including decisions about sensor mats?
- 03How detailed are the current care plans, and how are people's preferences kept up to date?
- 04How do you discuss and record each person's end-of-life wishes and preferences?
- 05What improvements were completed as part of the refurbishment programme, and how did you manage disruption for residents?
This was an unannounced planned inspection that assessed all five CQC areas and looked at both the care provided and the care home premises. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 July 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 Alexander House Care Home
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- July 2019Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 May 2018.
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 Calderdale
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 £1,260 a week. 87 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
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.