CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Alexander House
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, January 2022
Alexander House rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with a recommendation to improve medicines records.
This was an unannounced inspection on 13 December 2021. The inspector and a dentist spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and a healthcare professional. They reviewed care records, medicine records, staff files and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough suitable staff, trained staff, good infection control, personalised care and kind support. People’s health, dietary needs, choices and activities were generally well supported.
There was one medicines concern. One person’s medicines record had not been signed on four occasions. Inspectors were assured the medicines had been given as intended, but recommended that the home review its medicines procedures and update its practice.
This was the first inspection of the newly registered service. The previous Good rating, published in 2017, was under a previous provider.
Kind care
People and relatives spoke positively about the care. Inspectors observed staff showing kindness and compassion, with people appearing comfortable around them.
“People received care and support from staff that demonstrated compassion and kindness.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans covered people’s health, preferences, communication and life history. People were involved in developing their care where possible.
“People received care and support that was person-centred and tailored to their individual needs.” from the report
Trained staff
Training was up to date and further training had been planned. Staff also received regular supervision to discuss their work and improvements.
“We reviewed the training matrix and identified all training provided was up to date and future training had been scheduled.” from the report
Good management checks
The management team used audits and an action plan to identify concerns and make improvements. Staff and people were encouraged to share their views.
“The registered manager carried out regular audits of the service to drive improvements.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People could take part in activities that matched their interests and social needs. Inspectors found support was in place to reduce social isolation.
“People were supported to access activities that met their social needs and preferences.” from the report
Medicines records
needs fixingOne person’s Medicine Administration Record had not been signed on four occasions. Inspectors were assured the medicines had been given, but recommended a review of medicines procedures and further staff training.
“We recommend the service review their medicines administration procedures and update their practices accordingly.” from the report
Staffing at mealtimes
minorOverall staffing was judged sufficient, but one person said there could be more staff at mealtimes. Families may want to ask how support is organised during busy periods.
“Generally, there are sufficient staff, I think there could be more staff at mealtimes.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to medicines procedures since the four unsigned MAR entries were found?
- 02How do you check that every medicine administration record is signed correctly and promptly?
- 03How many staff are normally on duty at mealtimes, and how do you provide extra support when needed?
- 04How are people and relatives involved in reviewing and updating their care plans?
- 05What improvements have been completed since the new manager started in October 2021?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control measures in response to COVID-19. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 January 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, December 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control measures were in place during a coronavirus outbreak.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 19 November 2020. It checked infection prevention and control arrangements because the home had a coronavirus outbreak.
People were being isolated in their rooms and visitors were not being admitted at the time. The home had changed its communal areas to support social distancing, and a garden visiting area had been used previously.
Inspectors found enough personal protective equipment, including masks, visors, gloves, aprons and hand sanitiser. Staff were wearing it correctly and had received training on putting it on and taking it off safely.
The inspection was not rated. Inspectors were assured about the infection control arrangements they checked, but this report does not give an overall quality rating for the home.
Protective equipment
There were sufficient supplies of personal protective equipment and stations outside people's rooms so staff could clean their hands and change equipment.
“There were sufficient stocks of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) available including masks, visors, gloves, aprons and hand sanitiser.” from the report
Staff training
Staff had training in infection prevention and control, including how to put on and remove protective equipment safely.
“Staff had received training in infection prevention and control.” from the report
Testing arrangements
A testing programme was in place for both staff and people living in the home.
“There was a testing programme in place for staff and people living in the service.” from the report
Social distancing
The home had rearranged furniture and changed its environment to help people keep a safe distance.
“Furniture in communal areas had been arranged to provide more space and ensure people were seated at a safe distance.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are you managing room isolation now that the outbreak arrangements have changed?
- 02What visiting arrangements are currently available, including any use of the garden visiting area?
- 03Are staff still tested weekly and people living in the home tested monthly?
- 04How do you make sure staff continue to wear and change personal protective equipment correctly?
- 05When was the infection prevention and control policy last reviewed?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during a coronavirus outbreak; it was not a full inspection and the service was not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 December 2020 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
3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2019
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 8 August 2019.
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 Richmond upon Thames
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 £1,270 a week. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
“We cannot speak highly enough of the care that Angelique gave, and would recommend her to anyone else needing a live-in carer.”
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.