Archived: The Crescent

Some of the people who used the service had complex needs and were not able to verbally communicate their needs through speech, but we saw that staff took their time to understand what people were communicating and responded appropriately to any requests made.

Below is a summary of what we found.

Is the service safe?

Care plans had details of people's needs and how these were to be met. Risk assessments relating to the care and support being provided were regularly reviewed to ensure people's individual needs were being met safely. Regular checks were made of medicines by management and any mistakes noted and action taken.

Staff had received training about the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and understood how this could impact on the people they cared for.

Is the service effective?

People received effective care from staff that were trained and supported by the manager. We saw that people were happy, well cared for and treated with respect. Care plans were regularly reviewed with the person using the service.

Staff received a range of training. We evidence that staff received monthly one to one supervision and yearly appraisals.

Is the service caring?

The service was caring. This was confirmed by our observations of staff and people using the service. Staff respected people's privacy, dignity and their right to be involved in decisions and make choices about their care and treatment. Care plans we viewed detailed people's individual preferences, so that staff knew people's individual wishes

Is the service responsive?

People's needs were reassessed on a regular basis and we saw the service responded to any changing needs. We saw from the daily notes that people enjoyed the activities on offer and the home catered for their individual preferences.

People had access to other services and to professionals who worked with the provider and staff for the benefit of people who used the service.

Is the service well-led

The home employed a manager who knew their staff and people well. The manager told us about the audits that they conducted and showed us the recorded evidence to support them.

Staff from the organisation's head office conducted annual audits. People were asked for their views about the service and we reviewed the returned questionnaires which were positive.

On the day of our inspection we observed how staff supported and cared for individuals. We saw that the regional manager, senior worker and other staff members respected people's privacy and dignity, and took account of what people expressed and said in relation to the way their care and support was provided.

People who were able to communicate with us said they were happy with the service. One person told us 'I like my room and all the staff' and another person said 'I enjoy the food. My favourite is sausage rolls'. One person told us about the activities that they participated in which included horse riding, trampolining and swimming. We saw that people were supported to undertake a range of activities in the community and had varied and individual routines.

We spoke with a family member of people who use the service. They told us 'The staff are all wonderful. They have a good understanding of people's needs and this makes me feel comfortable and settled'.

People had consented to their care and treatment. Where people did not have the capacity to consent, decisions would be made in their best interest and with people's family members and representatives fully involved. People we spoke with said they had choice and control over the support they received. We observed they were involved in making decisions about their daily lives.

We saw the feedback the relatives of two people who use the service had recorded in the provider's own quality monitoring survey was positive. These stakeholders said they felt the standard of the care provided at 63, The Crescent was mostly 'very good'. One relative wrote 'We are very pleased with the excellent standard of the care provided by all the staff'.

We observed that staff who worked at the home treated the people who lived there as individuals, and with utmost respect and dignity. We saw that staff had the right mix of knowledge, skills and experience to meet the complex needs of the people that lived there and dealt with behaviours that challenged the service appropriately. We also saw staff encouraged and supported people to become as independent as they could and helped them to maintain their independent living skills.