You are here

Richmond Upon Thames Crossroads Caring for Carers Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 12 November 2019

About the service

Richmond upon Thames Crossroads Care is a domiciliary care agency providing personal care and support to 67 people living in their own homes at the time of the inspection.

31 out of 67 people using the service were receiving personal care. Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Staff were very well-trained, supervised, and appraised. Everyone we contacted praised the excellent care that staff provided, which more than met their needs. People and their carers said staff spoke to them clearly, in a way and at a pace they could understand and took time to explain things to them. Carers said that in the case of people with dementia, staff patiently repeated information as many times as was required. Staff encouraged people to discuss their health needs and made sure these were passed on to other appropriate community-based health care professionals. The agency had a highly developed professionals’ network that enabled seamless joined up working between services based on people’s needs, wishes and best interests. This included transitioning to different services as people’s needs changed. Staff protected people from nutrition and hydration risks, and people were encouraged to choose healthy and balanced diets that also met their likes, dislikes and preferences. People and their carers said their equality and diversity needs were met and they did not feel they discriminated against.

The agency had a culture that was open, positive and honest with transparent, excellent management and leadership. The organisational vision and values were clearly defined, understood by staff and followed. Areas of responsibility and accountability were identified, staff were more than happy to take responsibility on the ground and report any concerns they may have in a timely way. Service quality was under constant review and the agency strove to make changes to improve the care and support people received. This was in a way that best suited them. Audits were carried out and records kept up to date. The agency played a huge role in the community running and participating in many projects, through well-established working partnerships that promoted people’s participation and reduced social isolation. Registration requirements were met.

The service provided was safe for people to use and staff to work for. People received support that enabled them to live safely and enjoy their lives. This was because risks to them were assessed and monitored. The agency reported, investigated and recorded accidents and incidents and safeguarding concerns. There were suitable numbers of appropriately recruited staff available to meet people’s needs. Medicine was safely administered.

People and their relatives said they really enjoyed the first-class way staff provided them with exceptional care and support. Their attention to small details made all the difference. Staff acknowledged and respected people’s privacy, dignity and confidentiality. People were encouraged and supported to be independent and do the things for themselves, where they could, to promote their self-worth and improve their quality of life. The staff were very friendly, caring and compassionate and passionate about what they did and the way they did it.

People had their needs assessed, reviewed and received person centred care. They were given choices, supported to follow their routines, interests and hobbies and did not suffer from social isolation. People were given enough information to make decisions and end of life wishes were identified, if appropriate. Complaints were recorded and investigated.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives staff supported them in the least restrictive w

Inspection areas



Updated 12 November 2019

The service was safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.



Updated 12 November 2019

The service was effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.



Updated 12 November 2019

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.



Updated 12 November 2019

The service was responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.



Updated 12 November 2019

The service was exceptionally well-led.

Details are in our well-Led findings below.