Skip to content
The Care Home DirectoryEvery care home in England

CQC report explained · a residential care home

What the CQC found at Alexandra Court Care Centre

Requires improvementpublished 16 November 2025, 10 months ago

Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.

The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, January 2024

Alexandra Court Care Centre was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found risks in safeguarding, staffing, records and access to drinks.

This was a focused inspection following concerns about staffing, falls, food and drink, and person-centred care. Inspectors visited on 31 October, 2 November and 8 November 2023. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals, observed care and checked records.

The home was not always safe or effective. Safeguarding concerns were not always reported properly. Some communal areas were left without staff, care plans and risk assessments were incomplete, and drinks were not always available when people needed them. Food and fluid records were also not always accurate.

There were positive findings. Medicines were administered safely, staff recruitment checks were completed, the home was clean and well maintained, and staff received training and support. Staff also made appropriate referrals to healthcare professionals and supported people to have visitors.

The overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection to Requires Improvement. Safe, Effective and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement. Caring and Responsive were not inspected in this visit, so their previous ratings were used when calculating the overall rating.

What inspectors praised
  • Safe medicines

    Inspectors found that medicines were administered as prescribed and that storage, administration and recording systems were in place.

    “People's medicines were administered safely, and staff responded appropriately to accidents and incidents.” from the report
  • Staff checks and training

    The home completed appropriate recruitment checks. Staff received induction, regular training, supervision and development opportunities.

    “Staff received an induction which included shadowing experienced staff and completed regular training appropriate for their role.” from the report
  • Healthcare support

    Staff made referrals when needed and worked with healthcare professionals. Inspectors received positive feedback about the timeliness of referrals and staff following advice.

    “The management team and staff engaged with healthcare professionals about people's needs to promote good outcomes.” from the report
  • Clean and maintained home

    The home was generally clean and well maintained. Personal protective equipment was available and used when needed.

    “The home had a good standard of cleanliness.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Safeguarding reports

    serious

    Several incidents had not been referred to the local authority safeguarding team. Inspectors said this placed people at risk of harm and abuse.

    “The failure to ensure safeguarding systems and processes were operated effectively placed people at risk of harm and abuse.” from the report
  • Staff availability

    serious

    Communal areas were sometimes left without staff. People, relatives and staff raised concerns about delays in answering buzzers.

    “However, multiple times during the inspection, communal areas were not staffed which meant at times there were no staff available to manage risks and support people when they needed assistance.” from the report
  • Care records

    needs fixing

    Some care plans and risk assessments were missing, inaccurate or conflicting. This could make it harder for staff, including agency staff, to understand people's needs.

    “Care plans and risk assessments were not always accurate or detailed and some were not in place.” from the report
  • Food and drinks

    needs fixing

    Some people waited a long time for drinks, and records of food and fluid intake were not always accurate. Care plans also contained conflicting information about some people's diets.

    “Drinks were not always available to people when they needed them.” from the report
  • Quality checks and notifications

    serious

    The home's checks had not identified or fixed all the problems found. Not all incidents that should have been reported to CQC were notified.

    “The provider's systems had failed to ensure all notifiable incidents were reported to CQC.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What has changed to make sure safeguarding concerns are reported to the local authority and all notifiable incidents are reported to CQC?
  2. 02How do you decide how many staff are needed on each floor, and how do you check that communal areas are staffed throughout the day?
  3. 03What is the current waiting time for answering buzzers, and how do you monitor this?
  4. 04How have you corrected missing or conflicting care plans and risk assessments, including those used by agency staff?
  5. 05How do you make sure drinks are available and food and fluid records are accurate?

This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, later widened to include Effective; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings carried over. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 January 2024 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.

An earlier report, explained

What inspectors found, April 2022

Alexandra Court Care Centre was rated Good; inspectors found improvements in safety, medicines and management, with no current regulatory breaches.

This was an unannounced focused inspection on 2 February 2022. Three inspectors spoke with a person living in the home, six relatives and six staff. They also reviewed care records, medicines records, recruitment files and management documents.

The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found people were protected from abuse, medicines were given safely, staffing was sufficient on the day, and infection control was well managed. Audits and action plans were being used to monitor and improve the service.

The previous rating was Requires Improvement, with breaches of regulations. Inspectors found enough improvement had been made, so the home was no longer in breach. The overall rating changed to Good, but this inspection only assessed Safe and Well-led.

What inspectors praised
  • Medicines were managed safely

    Medicines records had no gaps, creams were used as prescribed, and regular audits were carried out.

    “Medicines administration records reviewed during the inspection were completed accurately, no gaps were identified.” from the report
  • Staffing had improved

    Staffing levels observed during the inspection matched the home's dependency assessment. Extra staff were provided when one-to-one support was needed.

    “Staffing levels observed during the inspection were in line with the dependency tool.” from the report
  • Management systems improved

    The home had introduced regular audits and monthly action plans to monitor safety and quality.

    “Governance systems had improved; a programme of audits was in place to review information in a timely manner.” from the report
  • Infection control

    Inspectors were assured that the home used protective equipment safely, followed visiting guidance and had arrangements to prevent or manage outbreaks.

    “We were assured the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Manager registration was still ongoing

    minor

    The home did not have a manager registered with the CQC at the time of the inspection. The application had been accepted and the process was continuing.

    “At the time of the inspection the service did not have a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01Has the manager now completed the CQC registration process?
  2. 02What are the current staffing levels, including reliance on agency staff?
  3. 03How are medicines audits used to identify and correct problems?
  4. 04What were the ratings and findings for Caring, Effective and Responsive at the previous comprehensive inspection?
  5. 05How are relatives involved in meetings, surveys and decisions about care?

This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, so the ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 April 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.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Alexandra Court Care Centre

5 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Requires improvement.

  1. January 2024Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from Good
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read what inspectors found at Alexandra Court Care Centre →

  2. April 2022Goodup from Requires improvement
    Safe: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read what inspectors found at Alexandra Court Care Centre →

  3. September 2021Requires improvementstayed Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. March 2020Requires improvementup from Inadequate
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. July 2019Inadequate
    Safe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. February 2019

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 5 February 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.

Next steps

Weigh the report against the rest

Care at home

13 live-in carers within about an hour of Kingston upon Hull, City of

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 £1,350 a week. 12 can care for a couple. 8 years' experience on average.

“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.”
Lucy K., about Emma H.
See live-in carers near Kingston upon Hull, City ofProfiles, 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.