Archived: Crystal Court

There was a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. The registered manager had also completed a Provider Information Return (PIR).The PIR is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

Crystal Court provided good care and support for the people that lived there. People we spoke with said they felt safe and they spoke positively about the care and support they received. Staff recruitment processes included carrying out appropriate checks to reduce the risk of employing unsuitable people.

Staff knew the correct procedures to follow if they considered someone was at risk of harm or abuse. They received appropriate safeguarding training and there were policies and procedures to support them in their role.

The service had systems in place for recording and analysing incidents and accidents so that action could be taken to reduce risk to people’s safety. Risk assessments were completed so that risks to people could be minimised whilst still supporting people to remain independent.

The home had safe systems in place to ensure people received their medication as prescribed; this included regular auditing by the home and the dispensing pharmacist. Staff were assessed for competency prior to administering medication and this was reassessed regularly.

Staff received appropriate training, supervision and support. Staff understood their roles and

responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) to ensure that people’s rights were protected when they were unable to make decisions.

There was a variety of choices available on the menus, snacks were freely available throughout the home and people were supported to have sufficient food and drinks to meet their dietary needs.

People had good access to health care services and the service was committed to working in partnership with healthcare professionals.

Staff were caring, kind and compassionate and cared for people in a manner that promoted their privacy and dignity. People felt listened to and had their views and choices respected.

People were involved in the decisions about their care and their care plans provided information on how to assist and support them in meeting their needs.

People were involved in activities they liked and these were linked to previous life experience, interests and hobbies. Visitors were made welcome to the home and people were supported to maintain relationships with their friends and relatives.

People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy and all the people we spoke with told us that they felt that they could talk with any of the staff if they had a concern or were worried about anything.

The provider actively sought the views of people using and visiting the service. They were asked to complete an annual survey and this enabled the provider to address any shortfalls and improve the service.

The service had a quality assurance system, and records showed that identified problems and opportunities to change things for the better had been addressed promptly. As a result we could see that the quality of the service was continuously improving.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home and the quality assurance systems in place. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service. They told us the registered manager was supportive and promoted positive team working.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people's relatives and the staff supporting them and from looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read our full report.

Is the service safe?

Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learned from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continuously improve.

When people were identified as being at risk, their care plans showed the actions that would be required to manage these risks. These included the provision of specialist equipment such as pressure relieving mattresses, hoists and walking aids.

Relatives we spoke with described staff at the home as being 'welcoming and approachable' one relative told us 'I am happy and relieved as I believe that X is getting excellent care.'

The home had safe systems in place to ensure people received their medication as prescribed; this included regular auditing by the home. Staff were assessed for competency prior to administering medication and this was reassessed regularly.

Recruitment procedures were rigorous and thorough. No staff had been subject to disciplinary action. Policies and procedures were in place to make sure that unsafe practice could be identified and therefore people were protected.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care homes. While no applications have needed to be submitted, proper policies and procedures were in place. We did not see any arrangements in place for staff to receive updated training to confirm their understanding of when an application should be made, and how to submit one.

Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs were assessed with them, and they were involved in developing their plans of care, wherever possible. People told us they were included in making decisions about how their care and support was provided. From speaking with staff they were able to demonstrate a good understanding of people's care and support needs.

Staff had received training to meet the needs of people they supported. Comments included, 'The training here is very good. We get good support from the managers. It is a well-staffed home.'

Is the service caring?

We saw staff were attentive and respectful when speaking with or supporting people. People looked well cared for and appeared at ease with staff. The home had a relaxed and comfortable atmosphere. One person said 'It is very good here actually. Staff are very kind and caring and we have nurses that know what they are talking about.' Another person said 'The care I receive is good.'

Is the service responsive?

People's needs were assessed and records we looked at showed they received specialist equipment or aids that they needed.

People's preferences, interests and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes.

People living at the home and relatives we spoke with told us they knew who to speak to if they had any worries or concerns. They were confident that any issues they raised would be looked into and action taken.

Is the service well-led?

The service had a quality assurance system, and records showed that identified problems and opportunities to change things for the better had been addressed promptly. As a result we could see that the quality of the service was continuously improving.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home and the quality assurance systems in place. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service. They told us the manager was supportive and promoted positive team working.

Effective management systems were in place to promote and safeguard people's safety and welfare. Such as health and safety records and peoples care records were up to date and had been reviewed regularly.

Relatives we spoke with told us they thought that overall the service ran well. One relative said 'They communicate well with us. They (staff) always ring you if they have any concerns.' Another told us about the regular newsletter the home produces in keeping everyone informed.

We spoke with ten people who used the service and three relatives. Everyone told us they were extremely satisfied with the care they or their relative received. People told us that they were treated with respect and were able to make choices and decisions about their care. One person told us “You can do what you want here.” People's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. One person told us "I am here for a short stay, I am very happy and well looked after."

People who use the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening. Records we looked at also confirmed that staff received support from their line manager and training in areas such as dementia awareness, basic first aid and safeguarding.

There were a range of effective quality management systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of service that people received. Both relatives and people living at the home said that they were able to express their views and opinions and would raise concerns if they had them.