Alexandra Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Staff at the home were caring and compassionate. People told us staff were extremely kind and friendly and most relatives told us they found staff to be approachable. We saw happy and relaxed interactions, on both assessment days, between staff and people they supported. People had choices in how they were spending their time. People’s friends and families could visit without any current restrictions.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People told us staff were nice to them and respected their dignity. Families told us staff treated people well. Relatives told us the provider and staff had kept them informed about their relatives when they were not able to visit.

Staff understood the importance of establishing effective relationships with people and knew how to communicate and support individuals, in a way they understood. Feedback received from staff was generally positive about their colleague’s caring approach to people. No issues were raised by any staff about people being treated unkindly. The registered manager received feedback from people, relatives and visitors to find out what they thought of the service.

Health and social care professionals felt staff treated people with kindness, compassion and dignity. They said staff were quite knowledgeable about people’s needs and respected their individual differences.

Throughout our assessment, we observed many examples of kind, friendly and respectful interactions between staff and people they supported. During our site visits we observed staff and managers interacting with people in a calm and considerate way.

Relatives told us, people’s needs and preferences were understood, and this was reflected in the care and support their family members received. People’s communication needs were met which meant they could engage with staff about how they wished for their care and support needs to be met. One family explained that no matter many times their relative pushed the alarm, as they often slid down the bed staff always come ready to reposition and ask if there is anything else before leaving.

Staff understood how people’s individual needs and preferences should be met. Feedback received from staff was that the care provided was very person centered. They respected people’s choices about how they would like this provided, for example, if people had specific dietary preferences. Several staff stated, when asked, that they would be happy for one of their relatives to live at the service. Some staff also referred to the environment overall and the homely atmosphere.

Staff were observed to treat people as individuals and understood individual care needs. For example, we observed staff communicating with a person who did not understand English, by using gesture and miming activities. The provider also allocated a staff member, who could speak the persons' preferred language, when they were on shift to that area of the service.

Systems were in place to ensure people’s individual needs and preferences informed how their care and support should be provided. There were opportunities for people who used the service and their relatives to share their views about the quality of the service provided.

People were supported to maintain relationships and networks important to them, including family and friends. Feedback we received demonstrated choices were supported and people’s rights respected throughout their care. One family said,” I’ve witnessed how staff talk to her, even though she doesn’t communicate back now”. People were involved in organising activities and choosing preferred menu’s and participating in regular resident meetings. There was also a resident representative committee which focused on improvements and managed the residents fund; whilst planning events such as recent SPA days, and flower arranging, which had gone down well.

Staff told us they supported people to be involved in their care and support and specific activities staff supported people with activities and events. Feedback received from staff, confirmed that people were supported in ways that they wanted. We saw there was a range of different weekly activities people could choose to engage in if they wished. The registered manager told us people were supported to be as independent as possible.

During the two site visit days we observed people engaged in a range of different activities. For example. One day four people were playing dominoes together with a staff member supporting them. The group were clearly enjoying and leading that activity themselves. We also observed people deciding when they wanted personal care support to be carried out, and staff coming at those times to assist them with that. The people we spoke with seemed happy and relaxed.

Processes were in place to ensure care plans included how people liked to spend their day, and other individual preferences, such as what they liked to eat or drink, or what they wanted to wear. These records also included any barriers to communication and how to resolve this. We saw there were different events planned and involvement with the local community including access to the local library services, primary school visits and with student volunteers.

People were supported to follow interests and to take part in activities that were socially and culturally relevant to them. Staff used a range of methods to consult with and involve people in making decisions about their care. This included individual and family meetings which were regularly held. People we spoke with and related records we looked at, showed this was done in a way that helped to maximise people's independence.

Feedback from one staff member raised concerns their workload takes them away from caring duties. Tasks such as; paperwork on digital systems, attending meetings, and carrying out audits. No specific examples were given of this actually having a negative impact on anyone. Other than the above comments, no feedback from staff indicated there were any concerns about people’s immediate care needs not being met.

During our assessment site visit, we saw no evidence that people’s immediate care needs were not being met. We observed people receiving personal care support in a timely and caring manner by staff. Where a person was in an agitated state a staff member sat with them to try to calm and distract them, this was successful. We saw people’s buzzers were responded to in a timely fashion and when an external fire door alarm was unexpectedly activated, several staff attended, to see what the issue was.

Feedback from staff was mixed. A significant proportion of the staff reported not always feeling supported by the registered manager or provider and reported that they often felt criticised. Feedback from the registered manager included how they believed they had supported individual staff to overcome their initial difficulties within the work environment.

The provider had equal opportunities policies in place and applicants had been considered from overseas workers, resulting in a multi-cultural and diverse workforce. Support had been provided to the overseas staff, including provision of temporary accommodation and support with financial assistance. The provider had recognised the importance of supporting staff wellbeing and had introduced employee of the month scheme because of staff feedback.