CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Alison House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, January 2024
Alison House is rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring support, but noted concerns about personal care, cancelled stays and confidentiality.
This was an unannounced inspection visit on 4 December 2023. One inspector reviewed care plans, risk records, staff recruitment and training files, medicines records, audits and staffing rotas. The inspector also spoke with one person, relatives, staff, managers and healthcare professionals, and observed people's care.
The home provides respite care for up to five people with a learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder. Four people were living there during the inspection. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines practice, suitable risk assessments and an open, positive culture.
The overall rating remains Good. Safe was rated Good and well-led was rated Good. Inspectors did not inspect Effective, Caring or Responsive during this visit, so those ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection.
The previous overall rating was Good, published in March 2018. The well-led rating improved from Requires improvement to Good. Inspectors said relatives raised concerns about some personal care, late cancellation of stays and confidentiality, and these points were passed to the provider.
Safe staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs safely. Recruitment checks and staff training records were also reviewed.
“Enough staff were employed to meet people's care and support needs, flexibly, safely, and staffing levels matched the rota.” from the report
Medicines
Medicines were stored, given and recorded safely. Staff training was refreshed regularly.
“People's medicines records were fully completed, and up to date.” from the report
Positive culture
People appeared relaxed and positive with staff and managers. Inspectors found the culture open, inclusive and focused on people's needs.
“The home had a culture that was open, positive, inclusive, empowering, and person-centred.” from the report
Quality checks
The provider and managers carried out regular audits covering areas such as care plans, training, health and safety, incidents and the environment.
“Thorough audits took place by the provider, managers, and staff that were regularly reviewed and kept up to date.” from the report
Personal care delays
needs fixingSome relatives said personal care was not always attended to quickly enough. They felt this was more likely when agency staff were working.
“Sometimes people's personal care isn't attended too quickly enough, but I think that is more an issue when agency staff are on.” from the report
Cancelled respite stays
needs fixingSome relatives said stays were cancelled late because of emergency placements. This was passed to the registered manager for investigation.
“The service is good, and management is much better, but it always seems to be us that gets cancelled.” from the report
Staff confidentiality concern
needs fixingOne staff member said confidentiality was not always maintained by regular managers. This was fed back to the registered manager.
“Sometimes it is difficult to discuss your problems with the [Registered] manager, confidentiality is not maintained by the regular managers on the service.” from the report
A staff safety concern
needs fixingOne staff member said the safety of the service needed to be assessed. Inspectors reported this concern to the provider, who said they would look into it.
“I think the safety of the service needs to be assessed.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure personal care is provided promptly, especially when agency staff are working?
- 02How often are respite stays cancelled because of emergency placements, and what notice and alternative support do families receive?
- 03What action has been taken about the concern that confidentiality was not always maintained by regular managers?
- 04What action was taken after the staff concern that the safety of the service needed to be assessed?
- 05How are people's non-verbal communication, preferences and risk assessments used to plan their respite stay?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 January 2024 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 2018
Rated Good overall, but inspectors rated well-led Requires Improvement because safeguarding notifications and improvements to the home were not consistent.
This was a routine, announced inspection on 22 January 2018. The inspector reviewed care, medicines, staffing, training, records and audits. They observed lunchtime and spoke with a person using the home, staff, managers and relatives.
The home provided short-term respite accommodation and support for adults with learning and physical disabilities. Inspectors found people were safe, supported by trained staff and involved in their care. Medicines, risk assessments, recruitment and healthcare support were managed well.
People and relatives described kind, respectful care. People were supported with communication, food, activities and community outings. Complaints were investigated and the home had systems to monitor quality.
The overall rating remained Good, as it was in January 2016. However, well-led was rated Requires Improvement because one safeguarding concern was not reported to CQC and improvements to the environment were slow.
People felt safe
People and relatives said they felt safe and well cared for. Staff had safeguarding training and could explain how to report concerns.
“Relatives told us they were confident their family members were safe and well cared for when staying at Alison House.” from the report
Individual support
Care plans included people's health needs, preferences and risks. People and relatives were involved in planning and reviewing support.
“People's care and support needs were effectively assessed by the provider before people began using the service so that they received care that met their individual needs and preferences.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff listened to people, supported different ways of communicating and respected privacy and dignity during personal care.
“We observed staff asking people's permission, letting people know what they were going to do and making sure doors were shut whilst people were being supported with their personal care.” from the report
Activities and community life
People were supported to follow their interests and go out to places such as cafés, parks, day centres and colleges.
“People were able to engage in activities that reflected their interests.” from the report
Trained staff and safe medicines
Staff received induction, training and supervision. Medicines were checked, stored securely and recorded accurately in the record inspectors reviewed.
“We looked at one person's medicine administration records (MAR) during our visit and found that these were up to date with no evident gaps or errors.” from the report
Safeguarding notification
needs fixingThe provider did not notify CQC about one safeguarding issue as required. Inspectors recommended reviewing notification arrangements.
“However, we are aware that on one occasion the provider had failed to notify CQC of a safeguarding issue which occurred during the provision of the regulated activity of personal care.” from the report
Home environment
needs fixingInspectors found communal bathrooms cluttered with equipment, a broken bath table and an overall appearance that was uninspiring. Improvements were described as slow.
“However, we saw that communal bathrooms were cluttered and used to store several commodes and bath chairs and a bath table was broken and awaiting repair.” from the report
Kitchen storage and bins
minorSome kitchen arrangements needed correcting. A bin had no lid, bins were not always used properly, and frozen meat was not labelled or dated correctly.
“We also noted that meat being stored in the freezer was not labelled to indicate what type of meat it was nor dated appropriately to show when it had been frozen.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to improve the home environment since inspectors found the communal bathrooms cluttered and the bath table broken?
- 02How do you now make sure every safeguarding concern is notified to CQC on time?
- 03How are kitchen bins, frozen food labels and food dates checked and recorded?
- 04How do you make sure activities and equipment are suitable for people who use wheelchairs?
- 05How are medicines checked when people arrive for a respite stay and during their stay?
This was a routine inspection covering all five quality questions, and the overall Good rating remained unchanged from January 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 March 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 Alison House
3 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2024Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 November 2015.
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 Westminster
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 £1,300 a week. 78 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“The quality of life that she's given my parents has been priceless. The peace of mind she's given my sisters and I, through a very difficult time, has been invaluable.”
“The interaction she gives my mother is incredible, singing, dancing, taking her to groups, on plenty of walks which mum always loves.”
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.