CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Alexandra House - Harwich
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- The home was found to be safe in the infection control areas inspected. However, inspectors were not assured that its infection prevention and control policy was up to date.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, August 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection controls but an infection control policy that was not up to date.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 5 August 2020. It was part of a coronavirus review of infection prevention and control in care homes.
Inspectors found the home was safe in the areas they checked. They were assured about visitor controls, social distancing, admissions, protective equipment, testing, hygiene and managing outbreaks.
Inspectors were not assured that the infection prevention and control policy was up to date. They signposted the provider to resources to improve its approach.
The home was inspected but not rated overall. Its last rating was Good, published on 14 March 2019.
Visitor infection controls
Inspectors were assured that the home was taking steps to prevent visitors catching or spreading infections.
“We were assured that the provider was preventing visitors from catching and spreading infections.” from the report
Protective equipment
Staff were using protective equipment in line with the guidance inspectors considered appropriate.
“Staff wore PPE (personal protective equipment) in accordance with best practice guidance.” from the report
Wider infection measures
Inspectors were assured about social distancing, safe admissions, testing, hygiene and outbreak management.
“We were assured that the provider was meeting shielding and social distancing rules.” from the report
Policy needed updating
needs fixingInspectors could not confirm that the infection prevention and control policy was current. They signposted the provider to resources to develop its approach.
“We were not assured the provider's infection prevention and control policy was up to date.” from the report
- 01Has the infection prevention and control policy been updated since the inspection?
- 02How are visitors currently prevented from catching or spreading infections?
- 03How does the home use protective equipment and arrange testing for residents and staff?
- 04What arrangements are in place to manage an infection outbreak?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; the service was inspected but not rated overall, and its previous rating was Good from 2019. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 August 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.
What inspectors found, March 2019
Alexandra House - Harwich was rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care, but noted mixed staffing feedback, food concerns and some cleaning issues.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 12 February 2019. One inspector and an expert by experience spoke with people, relatives, staff and a health professional. They observed care and checked care plans, staff files, training records, safety records, audits and meeting notes.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were protected from abuse, received medicines safely, and had personalised risk assessments and care plans. Staff were described as knowledgeable, kind and respectful.
There were some issues to watch. Feedback about staffing was mixed, although inspectors saw enough staff during the visit. People and relatives had raised concerns about food quality, and some taps and toilets needed more attention because of lime scale. The home had started actions to address these points.
The overall rating remained Good, the same as at the previous inspection published on 9 September 2016. The home was not placed in special measures and the report does not record any breaches.
Personalised risk planning
Risk assessments and safety plans were tailored to individuals and gave staff clear guidance on reducing risks.
“People's risk assessments were personalised and robust and we saw examples of this.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff reassuring people and involving them in conversations. People and relatives spoke positively about the care.
“We observed staff interacted with people and engaged people in meaningful conversations about their lives and experiences.” from the report
Activities and choice
The home offered a wide range of group, individual and community activities, with options suited to different interests.
“An activity programme was available and included group activities, one to one activities and trips into the local community.” from the report
Open management
The management team was described as supportive and was open with inspectors about staffing sickness and food concerns. It had introduced systems to monitor and improve the service.
“The registered manager was open and honest and told us about the issues they had in relation to the food and recent staff sickness” from the report
Mixed staffing feedback
needs fixingInspectors saw enough staff during the visit, but some staff and relatives raised concerns about staffing, particularly at weekends and during sickness absence.
“However, we did receive mixed feedback from staff and some relatives about staffing.” from the report
Food quality
needs fixingPeople and relatives had raised ongoing concerns about food quality and suitability. A new menu, feedback forms and a food forum had been introduced, but the changes were still being monitored.
“By and large the food was not good but has improved, they go out of their way on choices, they are always kind and you get something, usually hot” from the report
Some cleaning needed
minorInspectors found lime scale on some taps and in some toilets. The home had identified the issue and introduced a new cleaning rota and checklist.
“There were some areas in the service that required additional attention such as taps and some toilets which we saw had a build-up of lime scale.” from the report
- 01How many staff are normally on duty at weekends, and what cover is provided when staff are off sick?
- 02What feedback have residents given about the new menu since this inspection?
- 03What checks now confirm that taps and toilets are free from lime scale?
- 04How will you make sure activities are adapted for my relative's interests, communication needs and dementia needs?
- 05How are residents and relatives involved in reviewing care plans and service improvements?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, with the overall rating and each individual rating assessed during the visit. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 March 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 Alexandra House - Harwich
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- August 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 22 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.
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
35 live-in carers within about an hour of Essex
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 £1,260 a week. 25 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums life.”
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.