CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Princess Alexandra Home For The Blind
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Staffing, risk management, medicines, infection control and visiting arrangements were judged safe.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found clear leadership, regular audits and an open culture where people, families and staff could raise concerns and make suggestions.
What inspectors found, January 2024
Princess Alexandra Home For The Blind was rated Good; inspectors found people safe, well supported and cared for, with a minor recruitment record gap.
This was an unannounced focused inspection. Inspectors visited on 11 January 2024 and checked records off site on 12 and 15 January. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and a health professional, observed care, and reviewed care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicine systems, appropriate risk assessments and suitable safeguarding arrangements. People said they felt safe and staff were caring and helpful.
The inspection followed concerns about risk management and personal care. Inspectors found no evidence that people were at risk of harm from these concerns. One recruitment shortfall was found because some records did not contain a full employment history, and the provider made changes to improve this.
People felt safe
People and relatives told inspectors they felt safe. Staff knew how to recognise and report abuse.
“People told us they felt safe living at Princess Alexandra Home for the Blind.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People, relatives and staff described positive relationships and a person-centred approach. Staff knew people's needs and preferences.
“Management and staff were committed to delivering a person-centred service which achieved positive outcomes for people.” from the report
Safe medicines and staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Medicines were stored, recorded and given safely.
“Medicines were managed safely and properly.” from the report
Open management
People and staff could give feedback, and suggestions made in meetings had been acted on. Managers used audits and reviewed incidents for learning.
“The provider had set up systems to check the quality of the service.” from the report
Incomplete recruitment records
minorNot all staff recruitment records contained a full employment history. The provider had made changes to strengthen recruitment processes.
“However, not all records held a full employment history.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure every recruitment record includes a full employment history?
- 02How are risks and personal care needs assessed and reviewed for my relative?
- 03How do you check that any restrictions on a person's liberty remain legally authorised and in their best interests?
- 04What changes have been made in response to suggestions from people and families?
- 05How do your audits and incident reviews lead to changes in care?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other ratings were carried over from the last inspection published on 28 January 2019. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 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, January 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with overdue fire and electrical checks addressed during the inspection.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 05 December 2018. They spoke with six people living at the home, one relative, the manager and five staff. They observed care, checked the building and reviewed care, staff and safety records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, good training, kind support and detailed care plans. People had choices about their care and access to activities and the local community.
The report notes that the fire risk assessment and electrical checks were overdue when inspectors looked at them. The manager provided evidence that these issues had been addressed during the inspection. The home had also been rated Good at the previous inspection on 01 June 2016.
Enough staff
Inspectors found staffing levels were sufficient for people's different needs. People said staff responded quickly when they used their call bells.
“We observed staffing levels were sufficient to meet people's different needs and staff carried out their duties in a calm and unhurried way.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff supported people patiently and respectfully. People were involved in decisions about their care and encouraged to be independent.
“Staff were consistently kind and patient when they supported people.” from the report
Personalised care records
Care plans included people's backgrounds, preferences, hobbies, meals and other personal needs. Inspectors found a clear multi-disciplinary approach.
“Care records we saw were of a good standard, detailed and personalised to the person's needs.” from the report
Activities and community links
The home offered a wide range of activities, trips and links with day centres. People were given choices about how they spent their time.
“Princess Alexandra had a wealth of activities and events to maximise people's social stimulation and wellbeing.” from the report
Management checks
The manager used audits to monitor safety and wellbeing. The report says the manager listened to people's views and acted on them.
“Various quality audits had been completed to assess everyone's safety and wellbeing.” from the report
Overdue safety checks
needs fixingThe fire risk assessment and electrical checks were overdue when inspectors reviewed them. The manager provided evidence that these had been addressed during the inspection, but families may wish to check that they remain current.
“Although the home's gas and legionella safety certification was up-to-date, we noted the fire risk assessment and electrical checks were overdue.” from the report
- 01Can you show us that the fire risk assessment and electrical safety checks are now current?
- 02How do you make sure there are enough staff to respond quickly to call bells at all times?
- 03How would you adapt care and activities for someone with a visual impairment or a learning disability?
- 04How are medicines checked and audited, and what happens if an error or concern is found?
- 05How would you involve our relative and family in updating their personalised care plan?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall rating, with observations of care, discussions with people and staff, and checks of records and the building. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 January 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 Princess Alexandra Home For The Blind
3 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2024Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Princess Alexandra Home For The Blind →
- January 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Princess Alexandra Home For The Blind →
- June 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 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
32 live-in carers within about an hour of Blackpool
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 £1,250 a week. 31 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Thanks to Tracy, Dad was always immaculately dressed and clean, his meals were all home cooked and nutritionally well balanced and his home was always kept really clean and tidy.”
“He developed a close affinity with Terence, spending time talking with him before he retired to bed and looking after his needs during the night.”
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.