CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Alexandra - Oldham
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed. This included visitor screening, social distancing, PPE, testing, cleaning, safe admissions and arrangements for preventing or managing outbreaks.
- 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, March 2021
Alexandra - Oldham was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection prevention and control arrangements.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 10 March 2021. It checked how well the home was prepared to prevent and control COVID-19 infections.
Inspectors found visitor screening, health declarations, temperature checks, extra cleaning and good ventilation. PPE and hand sanitiser were available, and staff had training in using PPE and washing their hands.
The home was carrying out COVID-19 testing in line with government guidance. Inspectors were assured about infection control, safe admissions, PPE, testing, cleaning and managing possible outbreaks.
The service was inspected but not rated. This report does not give an overall rating or assess the other areas of care.
Clean environment
The building was clean and well ventilated. Cleaning had been increased for frequently touched areas.
“Cleaning schedules had been enhanced to include more frequent cleaning of touch points such as the nurse call system and door knobs.” from the report
PPE and hand hygiene
There was enough PPE for staff and visitors, with hand sanitiser available throughout the home. Staff had training in using PPE and washing their hands.
“There was an ample supply of PPE for staff and visitors to use. Hand sanitiser was available throughout the service.” from the report
Testing and vaccination
People living in the home, staff and visitors were tested in line with government guidance. Most staff and residents had been vaccinated against COVID-19.
“People who used the service, staff and visitors were tested for COVID-19 in line with current government guidance.” from the report
Family contact
Staff helped people keep in touch with family and friends through phone, video calls and social media. Face-to-face visiting had also recently restarted in line with guidance.
“Staff helped people using the service to maintain links with family and friends through the use of social media and phone and video calls.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visitors currently screened, and what health checks are completed before they enter?
- 02How often are frequently touched areas such as nurse call systems and door knobs cleaned now?
- 03How are residents, staff and visitors currently tested for COVID-19?
- 04How does the home manage face-to-face visits and help residents stay in contact with family and friends?
- 05What were the home's ratings for Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led at its last full inspection?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control under Safe; 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 25 March 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 2019
Alexandra - Oldham was rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care, with some minor medicine, training and maintenance issues.
This was an unannounced inspection on 27 and 29 November 2019. The inspector spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and managers. They observed care, looked around the building and checked care, medicine, recruitment, training and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. It was also rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found kind staff, person-centred care plans, suitable health support and good systems for managing risks and complaints.
There were some issues. Some staff had not completed first aid training, medicine records were not always signed correctly, and the medicines room was sometimes too warm. Equipment needed cleaning, some corridors needed redecoration and activities were limited. The report says action had been taken or arranged for several of these points.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff being kind, patient and considerate. People’s dignity, privacy and independence were supported.
“People told us, and we observed staff were kind and caring. People's privacy and dignity were respected.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans gave staff clear information about people's needs, preferences and how they wanted to be supported.
“People's care records were person-centred and contained guidance for staff on how people wished to be supported with all aspects of their care.” from the report
Good health support
The home monitored people's health and acted when needs changed. It worked with health professionals and had a registered nurse on duty at all times.
“The service responded promptly when people's health needs changed.” from the report
End of life support
People could remain with familiar staff near the end of their lives. The home also provided practical support for families.
“People could remain in the home supported by familiar staff when approaching the end of their lives.” from the report
Medicine records and storage
needs fixingSeveral handwritten medicine entries had not been checked and signed by staff. The medicine room was sometimes warmer than recommended, and the manager was still trying to reduce the temperature.
“Several handwritten entries on the MAR had not been countersigned by staff to show they were correct.” from the report
First aid training
needs fixingSome staff had not completed first aid training when inspectors visited. The report says this was arranged afterwards.
“Some staff had not completed first aid training. This has now been arranged.” from the report
Cleaning and maintenance
needs fixingThe home was generally clean, but a stand aid and hoist were dirty when inspected. Some corridors and skirting boards also needed redecoration.
“However, we found the stand aid and hoist, which are used to help move people, were dirty.” from the report
Limited activities
minorThere were activities and some individual time with staff, but the activities programme was not extensive.
“There was some provision of activities at the home, although this was not very extensive.” from the report
Mixed views about staffing
minorSome relatives and staff felt more staff were needed. Inspectors did not find evidence that people failed to receive timely care, and the home was recruiting more staff.
“We received mixed views about the levels of staffing at the home.” from the report
- 01Have all staff now completed first aid training, and how is this monitored?
- 02How do you check the temperature of the medicines room and respond if it becomes too warm?
- 03How do you make sure all handwritten medicine records are checked and countersigned?
- 04What activities are currently available for people who stay in their rooms or have limited mobility?
- 05Has the cleaning schedule for hoists and stand aids been maintained, and what redecoration has been completed?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including care, the building and management; all five ratings remained Good from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 December 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 - Oldham
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Good.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2017Goodup from InadequateSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2017InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Oldham
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 £1,260 a week. 92 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
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.