Alexander Court Nursing Home

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. This is the first overall rating of this newly registered service. At our last assessment we only looked at part of the key questions we had specific concerns about. The service was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to risk management and medicines. Improvements were found at this assessment and the service was no longer in breach of this regulation. At this assessment this key question has been rated good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

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.

The provider had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Accidents and incidents were monitored for any patterns to aid learning and resulted in changes that improved care for people. For example, involvement of relevant health and social care professionals. Complaints were appropriately investigated and reported. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. People told us they had no complaints about the service. People and relatives were confident any concerns and complaints would be recognised and investigated. People were given feedback from complaints and told the outcome of safeguarding investigations.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services. People were supported to attend appointments or were visited in the home appropriately to meet their physical or emotional health needs. There were also regular visits to or from dentists, opticians, chiropodists, dieticians and others.

People were protected from the risk of abuse and unsafe care. The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff knew how to keep people safe and protect them from safeguarding concerns. Staff were trained and able to identify how people may be at risk of harm or abuse and what they could do to protect them. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately. During the site visit, we saw kind and respectful interactions between people and staff. Staff were seen to offer people choices and seek consent before supporting them. The atmosphere in the home felt warm and open, and this was reflected in comments from people and relatives.

The service was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to the management of risk. Improvements were found at this assessment and the service was no longer in breach of this regulation. Systems had been established to assess, monitor and mitigate risks to the health, safety and welfare of people using the service. The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. Risks relating to the physical environment had been identified and the necessary remedial actions were completed to ensure people’s safety. Environmental risk assessments considered all aspects of the home, both internally and externally to ensure people lived freely within a safe environment. The provider undertook regular health and safety checks of the premises. Safety systems and equipment used at the service were maintained and serviced at regular intervals to make sure these remained in good order and safe for use. People had individual personal evacuation plans in place to guide staff in the event of a fire.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. Staff told us there was always staff on duty to support people safely. One family member said, “There is far less turnover in staff now, which is so much better than before.”

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly. Staff were trained in infection control and said there was plenty of equipment to ensure effective infection control. Staff wore appropriate personal protective equipment. Infection control audits were completed on a regular basis to ensure the safety of the layout and hygiene of the premises. The provider’s infection prevention and control policy was up to date.

The service was previously in breach of legal regulation in relation to the management of medicines. Improvements were found at this assessment and the service was no longer in breach of this regulation. Staff managed medicines safely and supported people appropriately. There was clear guidance and policies for staff to support people with medicines. Staff told us they had received training in the safe handling of medicines and had a competency check completed on an annual basis, or before if required. There were audits in place to ensure safe and consistent practice.