Crescent House

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring - This means we looked for evidence that people were treated with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect, and were involved as partners in their care.

At our last assessment this key question was rated Good. At this assessment, the rating has remained Good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 70 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People were treated with kindness, respect and compassion. Staff supported them in a caring and considerate way, taking time to ensure their comfort and dignity.
 

People and relatives spoke positively about staff. One person said, “Yes, they are lovely,” and another told us, “I like them all, can’t fault any.” Relatives described staff as “kind, friendly, very capable and willing to help,” and, “gentle and kind, very much about meeting her needs and wishes.”

Staff were observed greeting people by name, engaging in friendly conversation and offering reassurance. They supported people patiently, checking whether they were comfortable before helping. Interactions were calm and unhurried, and people appeared relaxed and at ease around staff.

People said they felt valued and respected. One person told us, “Staff are respectful; they know what I can do for myself and what I need help with.” Staff understood individual preferences, such as how people liked their hair styled, what they enjoyed wearing and how they spent their day.

Staff showed empathy and understanding, noticing when people were anxious and offering reassurance. Relatives said staff often went beyond their role to ensure comfort, commenting, “Staff are great; all very caring and they know the residents well.”

People were supported by staff who were caring, respectful and compassionate. The kindness and patience shown created a warm, inclusive atmosphere that promoted dignity and wellbeing.

The provider supported people as individuals and ensured care reflected their preferences, abilities and interests. Staff knew people well and tailored their support to each person’s routines and choices.

People and relatives said staff understood what mattered to them. One relative told us, “One of the things I like is that everyone is treated as an individual here.” Another said staff recognised their family member’s preferences and respected them.

Staff spoke warmly about people and demonstrated good knowledge of their personalities, routines and interests. Care records included personal details such as hobbies and preferred activities. Some people liked spending time in the garden or listening to music, while others enjoyed chatting with staff or joining group activities.

People enjoyed entertainment and visits that reflected their interests. One said, “I love when the animals visit,” and another told us, “A performer came to my room just for me and sang Frank Sinatra songs, he was so good.”

People’s cultural and spiritual needs were respected. One person said, “I am a Catholic, last Monday they connected to the church… we went down to watch on YouTube.” A relative added, “People from the Cathedral come in once a fortnight and offer Mass.”

Bedrooms were personalised with photos and ornaments, and staff encouraged people to make choices about their appearance, clothing and routines. Staff promoted individuality and dignity, helping people feel recognised, valued and at home.

The provider promoted people’s independence and supported them to have choice and control over their daily lives.

People told us staff encouraged them to do as much as they could for themselves. One person said, “I’m still mobile and walk with a stick as an aid. I am still independent, but I get help when I need it.” Another said, “Staff are respectful, they know what I can do for myself and what I need help with.”

Most people said staff respected their privacy and encouraged independence. One resident told us, “They ask what I want to wear and what I would like to do,” and another said, “I can watch TV all day if I want to, it’s up to me.”

The staff offered choices about clothing, meals and routines, and respected people’s preferences about how they spent their day. People could choose whether to join activities, relax in their rooms, or spend time in communal areas.

Staff understood the importance of maintaining independence and dignity. They encouraged people to move independently using mobility aids when safe to do so and provided reassurance when assistance was needed. People were supported to maintain skills, such as managing aspects of personal care or contributing to light daily tasks, which helped promote self-confidence.

Relatives told us staff recognised what was important to their family members and offered appropriate levels of help. They described staff as patient and attentive, ensuring people remained involved in decisions about their care.

Staff promoted independence, choice and control in daily routines, and people were supported to make decisions about their care in ways that respected their abilities and preferences.

The provider did not always respond promptly to people’s immediate needs. While staff were caring and attentive, high workloads and competing priorities meant people sometimes had to wait for support.

People and relatives told us staff usually answered call bells, but there were occasions when response times were delayed. One person said they sometimes waited for help, and another told us, “It can be 20 minutes or so.” Staff also said they were stretched during busy periods and had to prioritise those needing urgent assistance first.

We observed some people waiting in the dining room for support to eat or to be assisted back to their rooms. Staff were visible and working hard but were often occupied with other care tasks. This reflected the feedback from both people and relatives that response times varied depending on how busy the home was.

People received the help they needed, but the timeliness and consistency of staff response required improvement to ensure everyone’s needs were met promptly and without unnecessary delay.

The provider supported staff through training, wellbeing initiatives and professional development, although experiences of support and communication were not consistent across the team.

Systems were in place to promote staff wellbeing and development. Care staff were being supported to complete NVQ Level 3 qualifications, and senior staff were working towards or had achieved NVQ Level 5 in leadership and management. Staff had access to regular training and refresher courses to maintain their knowledge and skills. An Employee Assistance Programme (EAP) offered confidential advice and wellbeing support, including counselling and practical guidance.

Some staff said they felt supported and valued by colleagues and the provider. They described teamwork as positive and said they could rely on one another for help. Other staff told us they did not always feel fully supported, particularly when workloads were heavy or when management took time to respond to concerns, they had raised.

Staff spoke positively about opportunities for learning and career progression but said communication and recognition could be more consistent. Although this was the case, morale overall remained stable, and staff were committed to providing good care to people living at the home.

The provider had effective systems for supporting staff wellbeing and development.