CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Alexandra Court Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home had suitable infection prevention and control measures, including PPE, testing, cleaning, safe admissions and outbreak planning.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Outstanding
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, April 2021
Alexandra Court Residential Home was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good COVID-19 infection prevention and control arrangements.
The CQC carried out an announced, targeted inspection on 23 February 2021. It focused on how the home prevented and managed COVID-19 infections.
Inspectors found staff and residents were included in testing and immunisation programmes. Staff had training in personal protective equipment and were seen using it correctly. The home was clean and tidy, with regular infection control audits.
The home supported family contact through video calls and a visiting pod with a Perspex screen. New residents were admitted with negative COVID-19 tests and followed a 14-day isolation period.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the inspection checked infection prevention and control arrangements, rather than giving a full overall quality rating.
PPE and testing
Staff and residents were part of COVID-19 testing and immunisation programmes. Staff had been trained to use PPE and were observed using it properly.
“Staff had been trained in the use of PPE and were observed to be using it appropriately on the inspection.” from the report
Family contact
The home helped people stay in touch with family and friends during the pandemic, including through video calls and a visiting pod.
“The home had created a visiting pod with a large Perspex screen to enhance safety.” from the report
Safe admissions
New residents were expected to have a negative COVID-19 test before moving in and were supported to isolate for 14 days.
“Appropriate arrangements were in place for new admissions to the home, such as requesting confirmation of a negative COVID-19 test before each person moved into the home” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the home clean and tidy. Cleaning products were used according to the manufacturer's guidance.
“We observed the home to be clean and tidy.” from the report
Ongoing checks
The home carried out regular infection control audits and the manager researched current guidance and sought advice.
“Regular infection control audits were undertaken to ensure standards were maintained.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection prevention and control arrangements are in place now, and how do they differ from those seen in February 2021?
- 02How are residents and staff tested, and what happens if someone tests positive?
- 03How are visits from family and friends managed now?
- 04What checks are carried out before a new resident moves in, and how is any isolation period supported?
- 05How often are infection control audits completed, and how are any problems followed up?
This was an announced, targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic; the service was inspected but not rated and the other areas of care were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 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.
What inspectors found, December 2018
Alexandra Court Residential Home was rated Good overall, with Outstanding caring, although inspectors found some medicine and staff-checking issues.
Inspectors visited on 14 and 19 September 2018 without announcing the visits. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and a visiting health professional. They observed care and checked records, care plans, recruitment files, audits, policies and equipment.
The home was rated Good for being safe, effective, responsive and well-led. It was rated Outstanding for caring. Inspectors found kind, personalised support, enough staff, good care planning and strong management. They also found safe systems for medicines, although one person's medicines were given too close together and the medicine store had sometimes been too warm.
The overall rating stayed Good, as it had been at the previous inspection in January 2016. The caring rating improved from Good to Outstanding. Inspectors made recommendations about following the pharmacist's report and reviewing how often staff background checks were renewed.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff treating people with dignity, respect and kindness. Families and people living in the home were strongly positive about the care.
“Without exception, people were treated with dignity, respect and kindness which staff told us were the values of the service.” from the report
Personal choices and independence
Staff helped people make choices and remain as independent as possible. Support was adapted to individual goals, interests and needs.
“Staff and management were enthusiastic and committed to helping people become as independent as possible and, it was embedded in everything that the service and the staff did.” from the report
Enough staff and safety systems
Inspectors found enough staff to respond to people's needs. The home used risk assessments, environmental checks and systems for monitoring accidents and incidents.
“Our observations indicated a sufficient level of staff to keep people safe and respond to people's needs.” from the report
Responsive management
The manager responded quickly when inspectors raised a medicine concern. Audits and incident analysis were used to reduce the chance of problems happening again.
“During the inspection we raised concerns with one person's medicines. The registered manager immediately took action to ensure a further mistake could not happen.” from the report
Medicine timing and storage
needs fixingTwo medicines for one person were given close together when there should have been a two-hour gap. The medicine storage room had also been above 25 degrees on some occasions.
“However, we found two medicines for one person were given close to one another when there was supposed to be a two-hour gap.” from the report
Staff background checks
needs fixingSome staff background checks had not been completed again for eight years. Inspectors recommended that the home review its policy on renewing these checks.
“However, some background checks had not been completed in eight years.” from the report
Following the pharmacist's report
needs fixingInspectors recommended that the home worked in line with its new pharmacist's report after the medicine concerns were identified.
“We recommend the service works in-line with their new pharmacist's report.” from the report
- 01What changes were made after the issue where two medicines were given less than two hours apart?
- 02How are medicine storage temperatures checked now, and what happens if the room is too warm?
- 03How often are staff Disclosure and Barring Service background checks renewed?
- 04What actions were taken to follow the pharmacist's report?
- 05How will you make sure my relative's personal choices, interests and independence are recorded and supported?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions; the overall rating stayed Good, while the caring rating improved from Good to Outstanding. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 December 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.
Every inspection of Alexandra Court Residential Home
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Alexandra Court Residential Home →
- December 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Alexandra Court Residential Home →
- March 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 31 August 2011.
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 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.”
“Took his time to learn about me read my care plan and to listen to me. great companionship with lots of laughing.”
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.