Crossways Nursing Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Overall, the provider made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices, and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. For example, people’s care plans contained information such as things people liked and disliked and if they had any preferences regarding the gender of staff who supported them. Where people were able to, they had personalised their rooms, for example, with their own fridge, pictures, snacks and games. A person told us, “What is best of all is that [staff] let me make this room like my own space.”

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. We did not identify any concerns relating to the provider's understanding of people’s diverse health and social care needs, continuity of people’s care and treatment, or concerns relating to people’s protected characteristics resulting in an increased risk of poorer experience of care. A relative said, “We as a family are happy with everything, social services and the mental health team are involved in their support.”

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People’s communication needs had been assessed, and we did not observe any concerns in how staff supported them to meet these needs. People had access to pictorial menus to support them in making choices about what they ate.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. The provider had an effective system to monitor and respond to complaints and concerns. The provider had received compliments from people and their relatives.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The service had made appropriate referrals to external health professionals such as community nurses. The service's layout was accessible to people with various mobility needs.

There had been issues within the service for several months due to the lift breaking down. However, the provider had done all that was reasonably practicable to minimise impact to people, and the lift was repaired and operational before the end of our inspection.
 

Due to the concerns that we identified in relation to safeguarding, care planning and staff documentation of when people were emotionally distressed, we could not be fully assured that leaders could always actively or effectively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant there was an increased risk people’s care was not always tailored in response to all available information about them and their safety.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. Overall, people’s end of life care wishes had been considered, and people’s relatives had been consulted.