The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: The Crossings

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

108a Aylesbury Road, Wendover, Buckinghamshire, HP22 6LX (01296) 625928

Provided and run by:
Radian Support Limited

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

30 September 2015

During a routine inspection

The Crossings is a care home which provides accommodation and personal care for up to four people with learning and/or physical disabilities.

At the time of our inspection there were four people living in the home. There was 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.

The inspection took place on the 30 September 2015. The inspection was unannounced. We spoke with two people living at the home and six staff which included the registered manager. We spoke with one relative during the inspection and made contact with two relatives after the inspection.

Relatives told us they were happy with the care provided. Relative said they felt able to raise concerns as they arose and felt concerns were acted on. One relative commented “The staff at The Crossings are doing a great job. My relatives are safe. They are more engaged and are living a fuller life than they did.”

People told us they felt safe. Relatives were confident that their relatives were safe. Staff were aware of their responsibilities to safeguard people and training had been provided to promote safe practices.

Risks to people, staff and visitors were identified and managed. Medicines were safely managed. Care plans were in place which provided guidance for staff on how people were to be supported. We saw people were supported appropriately.

Safe recruitment procedures were in operation. Staff were suitably inducted, trained and supervised to ensure they were effective in meeting people’s needs. Staff had a good understanding of people’s needs and provided person centred care. We saw they were kind, caring and responsive to people’s needs.

People’s independence was promoted and they were supported to make choices and decisions. Their health needs were met and they had access to a range of activities.

The provider had systems in place to monitor the home and gain feedback from people who used the service and their relatives. People, staff and relatives were happy with the way the home was run and managed. The registered manager was available and accessible to staff and people who used the service.

26 February 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

This was a follow up inspection to check compliance with a warning notice and compliance actions set at the previous inspection on 14 November 2013. We spoke to the manager, four care staff and the relatives of one person who used the service. The relatives were satisfied that their family member appeared content but they were dissatisfied they were not informed of staff changes within the service. The people who used the service were unable to communicate verbally with us, therefore we carried out a SOFI observation to assess the quality of care people received.

We observed people's privacy, dignity and independence were promoted. We saw decisions about people's care and treatment were made within a legal framework to safeguard them. We saw care plans and risk assessments had been updated and were reflective of people's needs and the support required. We saw staff delivered care in line with people's plan of care and they were aware of associated risks and needs.

Staffing levels had increased to allow three staff on the morning shift to ensure they could meet people's needs in a timely manner. Quality audits had taken place which enabled the provider to monitor the service being provided. Improvements had been made to people's records and in the storage of confidential information.

Staff were positive about the changes. They said they were kept informed and felt involved. They were committed to introducing new ideas to benefit people who used the service.

14 November 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke to the manager and three members of staff. People who used the service were unable to communicate verbally with us, therefore we carried out a SOFI observation to assess the quality of care people received. We spoke to two relatives who were happy with the care provided. One relative commented "Happy with the care although worried that agency staff would not look after their relative properly". They went on to say that there appeared to be a lot of agency staff working at the home and did not feel that provided continuity of care.

We observed people's privacy, dignity and independence were not promoted. We saw decisions were made in relation to people's care and treatment which were not made within a legal framework to safeguard them.

Care plans and risk assessments were not effective in identifying people's needs which meant people did not receive safe and consistent care.

The home was clean and maintained which ensured people were supported in a safe, comfortable environment.

Staffing levels were not sufficient to meet people's needs.

Staff told us they were inducted, trained, supported and supervised in their roles. However staff practice would suggest the training was not implemented and regular supervisions were not happening to support staff in their roles.

Some quality monitoring systems were in place. However these needed to be developed to enable the provider to be confident the service was being effectively monitored.

7 February 2013

During a routine inspection

People who use the service had no verbal communication; therefore we observed practices and interactions to understand their experiences.

We saw personal care was carried out in private. Staff were responsive to people's needs and showed a good understanding of people's communication requirements. We saw staff explaining to people about the available choices for food and drink and we noted that specialist equipment was provided such as crockery, cutlery and beds to provide a comfortable and safe environment.

The home was clean and well maintained, the furnishings were comfortable and the rooms were well decorated. Information available in the reception area was in easy to read formats and provided essential information such as locations of the local doctor's surgery, dentist and local health centre.

Support files were kept for people who used the service detailing information such as medication and financial records and these were kept in the private rooms of the people who used the service. We saw staff asked permission from people who use the service to gain access to their rooms and any information held within them.

10 March 2011

During a routine inspection

People who use the service had no verbal communication, therefore we observed practices and interactions to help us to understand their experiences.

We saw that personal care was carried out in private. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people's communication needs. They were responsive to those needs.

We heard staff explaining to people what care and support they were giving to individuals during the course of the day. Staff assisted people to attend health care appointments.

People were provided with specialist equipment such as crockery and cutlery to support them with their meal. They were provided with specialist chairs and beds to provide comfort for them and maintain their safety.

We saw that there were insufficient staff available at lunchtime to serve and assist people with their meals in a timely manner. Drinks were not provided with the meal but were made available after. People were given a choice of drink. They were not given a choice of pudding.

The home was generally clean throughout with no unpleasant odours. It was well maintained, comfortable and suitably decorated.

People had their medication administered in line with the individual guidance in place for them. This was done appropriately.

People who use the service were involved in staff interviews. They were given the opportunity to meet and assess suitable candidates. Their responses were recorded, listened to and acted on.

People who use the service were comfortable with staff.

The complaints procedure was available in a user friendly format. This was explained to people who use the service. A record was maintained to confirm how this was done. Easy to use postcards were provided to enable people who use the service and their relatives to make a complaint.

People's support plans, financial records and medication files were kept in their bedrooms. We heard staff ask permission from people who use the service to gain access to those files.