Alistre Lodge Nursing & Care Home

Safe - this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. We identified 3 areas which breached the legal regulations. Whilst the manager and staff showed some understanding of safeguarding, incidents had not always been shared appropriately. People said they were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests. However, policies and systems in the service did not support this practice. The environment was no longer managed safely. The provider failed to monitor and address concerns around fire safety, health and safety and security of the premises. Systems to ensure effective infection prevention and control were not fully embedded. Recruitment procedures were not robust enough to ensure staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people, and we received feedback staffing levels were not always adequate to attend to people’s need in a timely manner. Whilst staff said they felt supported; they did not have access to induction, training or supervisions in line with the provider’s own policies. Medicines were no longer managed safely. We identified a number of issues with the management of medicines, including safe and secure storage, recording systems and processes to ensure staff competency.

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. We identified 1 area which breached the legal regulations. People told us they were involved in the assessment process and felt their needs were generally met. However, the provider no longer ensured care plans were easy for staff to follow or included the necessary information to guide staff around people’s specific needs and preferences. Feedback about the food was positive, and staff understood people’s nutritional needs well; but the current recording systems did not allow for efficient monitoring of new or ongoing concerns.

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. It was clear from feedback received and observations during the assessment that staff were caring, compassionate, and respected people’s privacy. A person living at the home said, “I am always treated with kindness and dignity.” People had access to their friends and families and the service supported these relationships. People gave examples of how staff respected their choices and promoted their independence. However, staff did not always have comprehensive guidance around people’s needs or preferences.

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture. We identified 2 areas which breached the legal regulations. The manager had been in post for 5 weeks and was awaiting to be registered with CQC. At the time of our assessment recruitment, support and development of the manager was not sufficient to ensure they had the skills, knowledge and credibility to lead effectively. We observed concerns around data protection; and governance systems were not used to adequately record, monitor and improve standards. However, morale at the service was generally good. Staff spoke about the manager positively, and felt they were treated fairly and had the freedom to speak up.