Skip to content
The Care Home DirectoryEvery care home in England

CQC report explained · a residential care home

What the CQC found at Alexander Residential Home

Goodpublished 25 April 2025, 17 months ago

Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.

The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, May 2018

Alexander Residential Home was rated Good overall, but inspectors found the well-led rating had fallen to Requires Improvement because records and audits were not always accurate or complete.

This was a comprehensive inspection on 9 and 13 March 2018. The first visit was unannounced and the second was announced. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, care workers and other professionals. They also reviewed care plans, medicine records, staff files, policies and other records.

The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive were all rated Good. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, kind care, support with health and nutrition, personalised care plans and activities for people to join.

Well-led was rated Requires Improvement. Some care plans, risk assessments, audits and staff supervision records were not dated, complete or kept up to date. Some policies and health and safety records also needed better management. The provider was moving to computerised care planning, and some issues were corrected during the inspection.

The overall rating remained Good, as it had been at the previous inspection. However, the well-led rating had deteriorated from Good to Requires Improvement.

What inspectors praised
  • Safe staffing and recruitment

    Inspectors found staffing levels were sufficient and recruitment checks were robust.

    “There were sufficient staffing levels to meet people's needs.” from the report
  • Safe medicines

    Medicine records, storage and administration were checked and inspectors found systems for as-required medicines, including maximum dose timings.

    “Times were documented when 'as required' medicines were prescribed, to ensure staff did not administer over the maximum doses within a 24 hour period.” from the report
  • Kind and respectful care

    People and relatives spoke positively about care workers. Inspectors found that privacy, dignity, choice and independence were respected.

    “People living in the home and their relatives told us care workers were kind, caring and knew them well.” from the report
  • Personalised support

    Care plans recorded people's preferences, likes, dislikes and individual needs. The home also offered activities and adapted parts of the building for people living with dementia.

    “Care plans were person centred and reflected people's individual needs.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Care records were not always current

    needs fixing

    Some care plans and risk assessments were not dated or had not been updated after people's needs changed. Important information could be missed when older evaluation notes were archived.

    “We found improvements were needed to fully ensure records were accurate and completed.” from the report
  • Audits and policies needed better control

    needs fixing

    Some audits did not show what had been checked or whether actions were completed. Some policies were old or did not accurately describe current practice.

    “Some audits were not dated and did not always include which person or area they were auditing, which made it difficult to check whether concerns raised from the audits had been rectified.” from the report
  • Some staff training records were incomplete

    minor

    Not all staff had completed refresher training. The manager was monitoring which staff were due for training.

    “However, not all staff had completed their refresher training.” from the report
  • Resident meetings had stopped

    minor

    Resident meetings had not taken place during the previous 12 months. The manager planned to restart them to gather people's views.

    “The registered manager confirmed resident meetings had not taken place for the past 12 months but planned to re-introduce these meetings to gather people's views.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01Have all care plans and risk assessments now been updated, dated and checked against each person's current needs?
  2. 02How do you record audit findings, the person or area checked, and the date when each action is completed?
  3. 03Which staff were due refresher training at the inspection, and has this now been completed?
  4. 04Have resident meetings restarted, and how are people's views recorded and acted on?
  5. 05How have you improved the management of policies and older health and safety documents?

This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, with visits on 9 and 13 March 2018; the first visit was unannounced and the second was announced. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 May 2018 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.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Alexander Residential Home

2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.

  1. May 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read what inspectors found at Alexander Residential Home →

  2. December 2015Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    We are reading this report · the original is on cqc.org.uk

  3. January 2014

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. January 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. February 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. December 2010

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 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.

Next steps

Weigh the report against the rest

Care at home

At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Leeds

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 £1,250 a week. 89 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.

“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
Claire A., about Carla M.
“Took his time to learn about me read my care plan and to listen to me. great companionship with lots of laughing.”
Jasmine A., about Joseph M.
See live-in carers near LeedsProfiles, rates and reviews are free to look at.

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.