The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Alexandra House Care Centre - Southport

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

2-4 Lord Street, Southport, Merseyside, PR8 1QD (01704) 543715

Provided and run by:
BEN - Motor and Allied Trades Benevolent Fund

All Inspections

8 June 2014

During a routine inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, and to pilot a new inspection process being introduced by CQC that looks at the overall quality of the service.

This was an unannounced inspection. Alexandra House Care Centre is a large care home that provides residential and nursing care for up to 56 people. The home is situated within walking distance of Southport town centre. Accommodation is provided over four floors, with the dining room, lounges and some bedrooms on the ground floor. It has a passenger lift and a garden to the side of the building.

A registered manager was in place at the time of the inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider.

People living at Alexandra House Care Centre were kept safe because they received good care and support that was tailored to meet their individual needs. Staff ensured they were kept safe from abuse and avoidable harm. Regularly reviewed risk assessments and care plans were in place for people with risks associated with their health and welfare needs. Staffing levels were sufficient to meet the needs of people living at the home.

Nobody living at the home was subject to a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguarding (DoLS) order. The registered manager and staff had a good understanding of DoLS and gave relevant examples of situations where people could be deprived of their liberty.

New staff underwent robust recruitment checks to ensure they were suitable to work with vulnerable adults. Staff were well supported through induction process and on-going training programme. Staff appraisals and supervision were behind schedule but this had been recognised by the registered manager and a system had been developed to address the matter.

We found staff were caring and treated people with dignity and kindness. People’s individual needs and preferences were respected by staff. People were supported to maintain optimum health and could access a range of external health care professionals when they needed to. People received adequate to eat and drink and were encouraged to maintain a healthy balanced diet.

The culture within the service was person-centred and open. People and families were involved in planning and reviewing care. From listening to people’s views and discussions with staff, we established that the leadership within the home was strong and effective. A process was established for managing complaints. The registered manager advised us that no formal complaints had been received within the last 12 months.

15 October 2013

During a routine inspection

Staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about people's needs, preferences and risks. One person living in the home told us, 'They (staff) ask me if there's anything I need or if they can get me anything. I very rarely press my bell but when I do they come quickly enough.'

The deputy manager was the 'infection control' lead for the home and was knowledgeable about how to ensure effective controls and checks were in place. People we spoke with told us they were happy with the standard of cleanliness in the home.

People living in the home or their representative signed the medication agreement which indicated the level of support they wished to be in place. Several people managed some or all of their medication themselves and the home had systems in place to support them to do this safely.

The home had a system of annual appraisal and supervision to monitor performance and support staff to carry out their work. Appraisal records were detailed and included an action plan for staff development.

We saw that records were kept of accidents or incidents. Following discussion, the deputy manager confirmed they would also record the actions they had taken in order to learn from them and look for trends.

25 September 2012

During a themed inspection looking at Dignity and Nutrition

People told us what it was like to live at this home and described how they were treated by staff and their involvement in making choices about their care. They also told us about the quality and choice of food and drink available. This was because this inspection was part of a themed inspection programme to assess whether older people living in care homes are treated with dignity and respect and whether their nutritional needs are met.

The inspection team was led by a Care Quality Commission (CQC) inspector joined by an Expert by Experience who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of service. At the time of our visit 56 people lived in the home. We spoke with eleven of these people and the family members visiting two people. We also spoke to the home manager and deputy manager, two nurses, five care assistants and the chef.

During our observations we saw staff were respectful and cared about the people in the home as individuals. For example, when supporting people to eat their meals, staff were careful to feed at a gentle pace, asking the person if they were ready for another spoonful of food and using their name when talking to them. We heard staff talk to people in calm, supportive tones and not rushing people such as when supporting them to move around the home.

The support provided also respected individual needs and pace. For example, at lunchtime some people were brought into the dining room in wheelchairs, one person was supported to walk in using a walking frame.

We also observed that everyone looked clean and well cared for.

We observed lunchtime in the dining room, which was divided by a floor to ceiling screen, to offer privacy to those having support. Six residents required help with feeding and drinking. This support was delivered in a person centred and unobtrusive way. Staff took time to allow people to eat their food and offered them a sip of their drink throughout the meal. They regularly spoke to them using their name and made conversation throughout the meal time.

The other people who lived in the home who did not require support with their meals ate in a pleasant room, with condiments, flowers and napkins on the tables. The meal time was not rushed and they were served by a waitress who was employed by the home. We saw that food was served hot and presented well on the plate. One resident told us, 'The food is good and soft so I can eat without difficulty.' Another said, 'There are plenty of choices.'

During our observations we saw there were enough staff to meet people's observable care, support and nutritional needs. The interaction between people who lived at the home and the staff was relaxed and informal and the atmosphere was friendly and homely.

One person told us; 'I have nothing to complain about as its lovely here and the staff are excellent.' A visiting spouse told us, 'We are given a quiet area to spend time together. The staff are kind, helpful and considerate.' For example, they would put the TV on at the right time so the person who lived at the home could watch a favourite programme.