CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Alison House CareHome Limited
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed, including visitor controls, testing, PPE, cleaning, social distancing and outbreak procedures. Safe was inspected but not rated.
- 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, January 2021
Alison House CareHome Limited: Infection control arrangements were reassuring, but this targeted inspection was not rated.
Inspectors visited on 18 December 2020. The visit was announced and focused only on infection prevention and control, as part of checks during coronavirus outbreaks.
The home had 11 people living there, although it could support up to 29. Inspectors were assured that visiting, testing, admissions, PPE, cleaning, social distancing and outbreak arrangements were safe.
The report does not give an overall rating or a rating for safe care. It says the service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not assess the wider quality of care.
Safe visiting
Relatives had been given a visiting policy with booking arrangements and time for visiting areas to be sanitised. Other contact methods were used when visits were restricted.
“The visiting policy and procedure in place had been shared with relatives.” from the report
Reducing infection spread
Staff were kept in set groups, and extra staff used to cover shortages were not working at other services.
“Staff were cohorted across the service to reduce the risk of cross infection.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the home clean and well maintained, with extra cleaning in place to reduce the spread of infection.
“The environment was well maintained and clean. Additional cleaning had been implemented to lower the risk of cross transmission of infection.” from the report
PPE training and checks
Staff had extra training in using PPE, and the manager checked that they were following the guidance.
“Staff had received extra training for the use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE).” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visits currently booked, supervised and made safe?
- 02How do you make sure staff working extra shifts are not also working at another service?
- 03How often are staff checked on their use of PPE and infection control procedures?
- 04What testing arrangements are currently in place for residents and staff?
- 05What changes have been made to infection control arrangements since the inspection?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus outbreak; the service was inspected but not rated and the wider quality of care was not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 January 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
Alison House CareHome Limited was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with more work needed on activities and some care records.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 9 January 2020. Inspectors spoke with five people living at the home, two relatives, staff and managers. They reviewed care and staff records, observed care, and contacted two health professionals.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, kind care, good support from health professionals and clear leadership.
There were some areas to improve. Risk plans did not always explain clearly how staff should support people safely. Some people and relatives wanted more meaningful activities. Information about oral health for people with dentures was not yet complete.
The overall rating stayed Good, the same as at the previous inspection published on 30 June 2017.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke highly of the staff. Inspectors saw staff being attentive, warm, reassuring and respectful.
“People were treated with kindness, compassion and respect.” from the report
Enough staff
People, relatives and staff said there were enough staff. Inspectors found that people's needs were met in a timely way.
“There were enough staff on duty to meet people's needs in a timely manner.” from the report
Safe medicines support
Staff gave medicines on time, followed instructions and had regular checks of their medicines skills.
“People received their medicine on time by staff who were trained to administer it as prescribed.” from the report
Personalised care
Staff knew people's needs and preferences and adapted their approach. People and relatives were involved in planning care.
“People received care that was personalised to their needs.” from the report
Open management
The home had an established management team, quality checks and opportunities for people, relatives and staff to give feedback.
“The registered manager created an open culture where they led by example.” from the report
Activities were not always meaningful
needs fixingSome people wanted more activities and some relatives felt people were not regularly stimulated. The staff team had identified this as an area for improvement.
“Some people told us they wanted more activities and some relatives felt people were not regularly stimulated.” from the report
Denture care information incomplete
minorPeople's oral health needs were assessed, but further information about oral health for people with dentures had not been fully explored.
“However, additional information relating to oral health for people with dentures had not yet been fully explored.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to the risk assessments, and how do they now explain the support each person needs to stay safe?
- 02What regular activities are now available, and how do you find out what each person considers meaningful?
- 03How are oral health needs checked for people with dentures, and where is this recorded?
- 04How will you involve my relative and our family in reviewing their care plan as their needs change?
- 05How do you check that staffing levels remain sufficient at weekends and when people need extra support?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five key questions, with the overall rating and each question rating reviewed. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 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 Alison House CareHome Limited
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- January 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Alison House CareHome Limited →
- February 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Alison House CareHome Limited →
- June 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 11 April 2013.
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 Stoke-on-Trent
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 £1,190 a week. 93 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“She's shown compassion, patience and a level of understanding that no other carer has given.”
“She maintained a great environment for mum both with the tidiness and cleanliness of the house and Mum and with her caring and understanding attitude.”
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.