CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Alpha Community Care
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- A risk assessment was not followed, leaving dangerous fluids accessible to a person at risk of drinking them. Damaged, dirty and mouldy areas also created an infection risk, although medicines, staffing and recruitment were found to be safe.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and reviewed. Staff were trained and supported, and people were supported with nutrition, healthcare, choice and consent.
- Caring?
- Good
- Relatives said staff were caring. Inspectors found that staff knew people well, respected their privacy and dignity, and encouraged independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs, preferences and routines. People had access to activities and community links, although activities could have been more closely matched to their interests.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The home had a clear management structure and a positive culture, but its quality checks did not identify or resolve important safety and infection control concerns.
What inspectors found, July 2019
Alpha Community Care was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found unsafe risk management, infection control and weak quality checks, alongside kind and effective care.
This was a scheduled, announced inspection on 4 July 2019. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and the manager. They reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff files, complaints, incidents and quality checks, and observed people's care.
The home was caring, effective and responsive, and people received medicines safely. Staff knew people well, supported their choices and helped them maintain their health and nutrition. There were enough suitably recruited staff.
However, inspectors found that one person's risk plan was not followed. Damaged and dirty bathrooms, mould and an infestation created an infection risk. The home's checks had not properly identified or dealt with these problems.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe and Well-led were both Requires Improvement, while Effective, Caring and Responsive were Good. The overall rating had fallen from Good at the previous inspection, published in November 2016.
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored, administered and recorded safely. Staff who gave medicines had completed training and competency checks.
“Medicines were managed safely, and people received their medicine as prescribed.” from the report
Skilled and sufficient staff
There were enough staff with the right skills, and recruitment checks were in place. Consistent staffing meant staff knew people well.
“Consistent staffing enabled people to receive good care from staff who knew them well.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Relatives were positive about the care. Staff treated people as individuals, offered choices and supported privacy, dignity and independence.
“We saw people being encouraged to complete tasks for themselves.” from the report
Person-centred support
Care plans included people's preferences, communication needs and routines. Staff used accessible information and supported people to make choices.
“People received care and support specific to their needs, preferences and routines.” from the report
Risk plan not followed
seriousA person at risk of drinking unsafe fluids could access paint and decorating fluids, as well as toiletries. The manager secured the fluids during the inspection.
“This meant the person was at risk of accessing dangerous fluids and drinking them.” from the report
Poor condition and cleanliness
seriousBathrooms were damaged, dirty and affected by mould, with an ant infestation in one area. One bedroom also had damaged furnishings, dirt and a smell of mould.
“All this meant people were at risk of infection.” from the report
Quality checks did not lead to action
seriousAudits were in place, but they failed to identify the risk problem and did not ensure that known infection control concerns were dealt with.
“The systems had failed to identify our concerns relating to risks and, although most of the infection control concerns had been identified, little or no action had been taken.” from the report
Activities could be more individual
needs fixingPeople had access to activities and outings, but inspectors found they were not always meaningful or linked closely enough to people's interests.
“However, we found activities could be improved by making them more meaningful and linking them to people's interests.” from the report
- 01Have the damaged and mouldy bathrooms been refurbished, and are they now clean and easy to maintain?
- 02How do you make sure each person's risk assessment is followed every day, particularly for risks involving unsafe fluids?
- 03What action was taken after the quality assurance concerns in this report, and how are you checking that improvements have lasted?
- 04How are activities now linked to each person's interests and hobbies?
- 05What was the outcome of the action plan requested by the CQC after this inspection?
This was an inspection of the accommodation and personal care provided by the home and covered all five CQC questions; the previous inspection had rated all five areas Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 July 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.
What inspectors found, November 2016
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with some service plans still being developed.
The inspection was announced and took place on 3 November 2016. One inspector reviewed the home, spoke with staff, the manager, relatives and health professionals, observed care, and checked care plans, medicines, staffing and other records.
The home supported up to four people with learning disabilities and complex needs. Four people lived there at the time. Inspectors found that people were safe, their risks and medicines were managed, and staff had suitable training and support.
Care was described as kind and respectful. Care plans were personalised and updated when people's needs changed. People had access to more regular activities, including trips out, and families were involved in care reviews.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. It had previously been rated Requires improvement in October 2015, but a focused inspection in May 2016 found improvements, which this inspection said had been sustained.
Managing risks
The home identified individual risks and put plans in place to reduce them. Inspectors also found systems for safeguarding people and managing accidents.
“Systems were in place to safeguard people. Risks to people were identified and managed which promoted people's safety.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff were patient and gentle. Inspectors saw people being supported with reassurance, choice, privacy and dignity.
“People were happy, relaxed and appeared comfortable with staff.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's likes, dislikes and important relationships. Families were involved in developing and reviewing them.
“Care plans were personalised and each file contained information about the person's likes, dislikes and people important to them.” from the report
Activities and community access
People had individual activity programmes and inspectors saw all four people go out for a trip. The report said access to community activities had become easier.
“We saw people had access to regular activities which included in house activities such as board games, pizza making, gardening, arts and crafts as well as walks, parks, drives, meals out, bowling and train rides.” from the report
Strong leadership
The manager was described as accessible and committed. Staff and professionals said leadership had brought positive changes and supported person-centred care.
“The service had a positive culture that was person-centred, open, inclusive and empowering.” from the report
Emergency plan being reviewed
minorThe contingency plan for events such as power cuts or flooding was still being reviewed at the time of inspection.
“The home had a contingency plan which was in the process of being reviewed.” from the report
Some staff appraisal paperwork pending
minorThe annual appraisal documents were being reviewed, so annual appraisals were scheduled to take place after that review was finished.
“Annual appraisals were scheduled to take place once the documentation review was completed.” from the report
Person-centred learning record still developing
minorThe manager's learning log was being developed to record what people liked or disliked about activities and meals. Inspectors described this work as unfinished.
“This was still work in progress that was being developed to enable them to provide a more person centred approach to individuals.” from the report
- 01How would you provide one-to-one staffing if my relative's health or support needs changed?
- 02What has happened to the contingency plan for emergencies such as a power cut or flood?
- 03Have all staff now had their annual appraisals, and how are outstanding training updates managed?
- 04How do you use the learning log to adapt activities and meals to each person's likes and dislikes?
- 05Which community activities are currently available, and how often can residents take part?
This was an announced inspection of the overall service covering all five CQC questions, following earlier inspections that checked improvements after a Requires improvement rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 November 2016 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 Alpha Community Care
6 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Requires improvement.
- July 2019Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2015Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2015Inadequatestayed InadequateSafe: InadequateCaring: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- April 2015InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: InadequateResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 12 January 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
89 live-in carers within about an hour of Buckinghamshire
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 £1,300 a week. 79 can care for a couple. 13 years' experience on average.
“We can all fully relax around Nyarai and she feels like part of our family, which is no mean feat!”
“She was v competent and confident and we felt our mum was safe in her care. She supported us through a difficult time.”
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.