CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Alice House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, April 2021
Alice House was inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control, with some records and equipment needing attention.
This was a planned, announced inspection on 15 March 2021. It was a targeted visit focused on infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors found that the home had effective arrangements for testing, PPE, cleaning, admissions, visitors and managing possible outbreaks. Staff had infection control training, and the home was clean and tidy.
The inspection did not assess all five areas of care. The home was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Infection control training
Staff had received infection prevention and control training and understood how to use PPE safely.
“All staff had received IPC training, including how to safely put on and take off PPE such as gloves, aprons, and face coverings.” from the report
Cleaning
The home was clean and had a cleaning schedule covering touch points and other areas several times a day.
“The home was clean and tidy. The provider employed a team of housekeepers to provide cleaning duties over a seven-day period.” from the report
Managing admissions
People entering the home were tested, had their belongings isolated and were kept apart for 14 days. Staff working in the assessment unit did not work in the main home.
“No-one would be admitted without a negative test first and their belongings would go into isolation for 72 hours prior to the person moving in.” from the report
Keeping families connected
During lockdown, staff helped people stay in touch with relatives by phone and photographs. The home also had a visitor pod and encouraged garden visits.
“We connect people to their families with phone calls, we also sent pictures to families of people having fun.” from the report
Consent records
needs fixingThe manager had not recorded consent for COVID-19 testing in line with the Mental Capacity Act. The manager said care records would be reviewed and updated.
“However, whilst people did not refuse to be tested, the registered manager had not recorded consent in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.” from the report
Clinical waste bins
needs fixingSome bedrooms did not have foot-operated bins for disposing of clinical waste and used PPE. The provider agreed to add them.
“Not all rooms had foot operated bins to dispose of clinical waste.” from the report
- 01Have consent records for COVID-19 testing now been reviewed and updated?
- 02Are there now foot-operated clinical waste bins in every bedroom?
- 03How are staff working in the assessment unit kept separate from staff working in the main home?
- 04How often are residents and staff tested, and how are the results managed?
- 05What arrangements are in place for visits and family contact if there is another outbreak?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control under Safe only; the service was inspected but not rated in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 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, February 2020
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but medicines records and staffing review needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection over two days. The inspector spoke with people living at the home, staff, relatives and the manager. They also observed care and checked records, medicines and quality checks.
People were generally safe, happy and well cared for. Staff were kind and knew people well. Care was personalised, with good activities, food choices, health care and support for people living with dementia.
The overall rating was Good. Safe was rated Requires Improvement because one controlled medicine record was inaccurate, some medicine guidance and checks were missing, and staffing levels needed reviewing as occupancy increased. The home was asked to improve medicine recording, but the report did not record any legal breaches.
Kind and respectful care
Staff were attentive and understood people's dementia-related needs. Inspectors saw staff use a calm, individual approach when someone became distressed.
“Staff interactions with people were kind, caring and considerate.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's routines, histories and preferences. Staff knew people well and supported them to make choices in daily life.
“Care plans were person centred and included any best practice and information from healthcare professionals.” from the report
Meaningful activities
People were involved in everyday tasks as well as outings, entertainment and hobbies. Activities were linked to people's interests and past lives.
“Staff provided a varied programme of activities taking into consideration peoples past and their hobbies and interests.” from the report
Good partnership working
The home worked with doctors, nurses and other specialists to support people's health. This included support with mental health and end of life care.
“Daily records showed staff worked closely with healthcare professionals to meet the needs of people who lived at Alice House.” from the report
Improved leadership
The well-led rating improved from Requires Improvement at the last inspection to Good. Notifications were being submitted on time and relatives and staff spoke positively about the manager's approach.
“At this inspection we saw notifications were being submitted in a timely way.” from the report
Medicine records
seriousOne controlled medicine did not match the records, with one tablet unaccounted for. Some PRN guidance was missing at the start of the inspection, and ongoing staff competency checks were not recorded.
“During our check of the home's medicine stock against their records, we found one controlled drug where the records were not accurate.” from the report
Staffing levels needed review
needs fixingStaffing had been reduced when fewer people lived at the home. As numbers increased again, the provider agreed to review staffing and add at least one care worker, but there was no dependency tool to support the decision.
“The registered provider agreed they did now need to review staffing and increase care staff by at least one.” from the report
Some care discussions were not recorded
minorPeople and relatives were involved in assessments and care planning where possible, but this involvement was not always documented. The manager agreed to record consultations more consistently.
“People or their relatives had been involved in their assessments, care planning and reviews where this was possible. This was not always documented.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to ensure controlled medicines always match the records?
- 02How do you now check staff competence in giving medicines, and how often are these checks recorded?
- 03Have you increased care staff by at least one, as agreed during the inspection?
- 04What method do you use now to assess how many staff are needed for the people living here?
- 05How do you make sure people's involvement in care planning and reviews is recorded?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC key questions, with the home and the care provided both assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 February 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.
Every inspection of Alice House
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2015GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 4 February 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
23 live-in carers within about an hour of North Somerset
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 £1,050 to £1,320 a week. 19 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
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.