You are here

Crystal Care Home Care Limited Good

We are carrying out a review of quality at Crystal Care Home Care Limited. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 30 December 2016

We inspected this service on 8 November 2016. The inspection visit was announced.

Crystal Care Home Care delivers personal care to people in their own homes. At the time of our inspection, 83 people were receiving the service. The service predominantly supports older people and can support people with complex and specialist support needs.

We last inspected the service on 7 August 2014 where no concerns identified

There was not a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission 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. On the day of the inspection visit, the provider supported this manager to explain how the service operated and was managed.

People told us they felt safe with the staff that came to their home. Staff were trained in safeguarding and understood the signs of abuse and their responsibilities to keep people safe. Recruitment practices were followed that helped ensure only suitable staff were employed at the service.

Risks of harm to people were identified at the initial assessment of care and their care plans included the actions staff would take to minimise the risks. Staff understood people's needs and abilities because they had the opportunity to get to know people well through shadowing experienced staff during induction before working with them independently. Equipment used to support people was regularly tested to ensure it was safe to use

People were supported by regular members of staff who supported people in a timely manner. Staff were trained in medicines management, to ensure they knew how to support people to take their medicines safely to keep accurate records.

Staff received the training and support they needed to meet people's needs effectively. Staff felt supported by management team and were encouraged to consider their own personal development.

The manager understood their responsibility to comply with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff had a good understanding of MCA and DoLS. People made their own decisions about their care and support. When people lacked capacity the best interest process was followed.

People were supported to eat meals of their choice and staff understood the importance of people having sufficient nutrition and hydration. Staff referred people to healthcare professionals for advice and support when their health needs changed.

People told us staff were kind and respected their privacy, dignity and independence. Care staff were thoughtful and recognised and respected people's wishes and preferences.

People and relatives said that the service was responsive to their needs. The service proactively assessed people’s needs so they received support when they needed it. The service worked with other providers to provide care to people so they could either stay in or return to their family home.

People received person centred care from a service that had a flexible approach and was responsive to unforeseen circumstances

People knew how to complain and were confident any complaints would be listened to and action taken to resolve them. When areas of improvement were recognised plans were put in place to resolve them.

People and relatives agreed that the service was managed well. Management understood the service being provided. Staff and management talked about the open door policy in place, which made the management team approachable.

The provider's quality monitoring system focused on the experience of people. It included asking people for their views about the quality of the service and field supervisions and observations. The computer system in place informed the management team when tasks, such as a review of care, wer

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 30 December 2016

The service was safe.

People were protected from harm. Staff could identify and minimise risks to people’s health and safety. Accident and incidents were recorded and staff understood how to report suspected abuse.

The service had arrangements in place to ensure people would be safe in an emergency.

People were support by sufficient number of staff who supported people regularly and who were recruited safely.

Medicines were managed and administered safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 30 December 2016

The service was effective.

Staff had the skills and training to support people’s needs and staff felt supported.

The requirements of the Mental capacity Act (MCA) were met and staff had a good understanding of the MCA and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

People's nutritional needs were met.

People had access to health and social care professionals who helped them to maintain their health and well-being.

Caring

Good

Updated 30 December 2016

The service was caring.

Staff understood the importance of building caring relationships with the people they supported.

The service understood what is important to people and took this into account when requests were made to change support times.

People told us staff were kind, respected their privacy and dignity and encouraged them to maintain their independence.

Responsive

Good

Updated 30 December 2016

The service was responsive.

People’s needs were assessed and reviewed to ensure they received appropriate support.

People’s care was person centred and care planning involved people and those close to them.

Staff were responsive to the needs and wishes of people.

People and relatives knew how to make a complaint and were confident any concerns they had would be acted on.

Well-led

Good

Updated 30 December 2016

The service was well led.

The service ensured there was a positive culture that was person centred, open, inclusive and empowering for people who used the service.

Staff knew and understood the organisational values which were reflected in the support we observed.

There were effective quality assurance systems that focused on the experience people received.