You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 13 April 2017

This inspection took place on 15 March 2017 and was announced. At our previous inspection in August 2015 we had concerns that the service was not consistently safe or well led. At this inspection we found that improvements had been made and there were no concerns identified.

Crossroads Care Staffordshire provides a range of services to people in their own home. The services include respite services for carers, palliative care services, domestic homecare services, an emergency service, one to one and group activities. There were approximately 250 people using the service at the time of the inspection.

There was a manager in post who was in the process of registering with us. 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.

People felt safe and risks of harm had been assessed and minimised through the effective use of risk assessments.

People were receiving their medicines from trained staff when required.

There were sufficient numbers of suitably trained staff to meet people's needs safely. New staff were recruited through safe procedures to ensure that they were fit and of good character to work with people who used the service.

People were safeguarded from abuse as staff and the management knew what to do when they suspected potential abuse. The local safeguarding procedures were being followed.

People were receiving care from staff who felt supported and had received training to be effective in their roles.

People were consenting to their care or when they lacked mental capacity were being supported by their representatives to consent to their care.

When required people were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts. Staff knew what to do if people became unwell or their health needs changed.

People were treated with dignity and respect. People's right to privacy was upheld and they were encouraged to be as independent as they were able to be.

People were receiving care that met their individual assessed needs and preferences and their care was regularly reviewed with them.

There was a complaints procedure and people were confident that if they raised any issues they would be dealt with.

People, their relatives and staff had confidence in the provider and thought that the service was well led. Their views were regularly sought on the quality of care being provided and action was taken when shortfalls were identified.

The systems the provider had in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service were effective.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 13 April 2017

The service was safe.

People were safeguarded from abuse as the staff and manager knew what to do if they suspected someone had suffered abuse.

People felt safe and risks of harm were assessed and minimised.

The provider followed safe recruitment procedures when employing staff to ensure they were of good character and fit to work with people. There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet the needs of people who used the service.

People were receiving their medicines from staff that were trained to administer medicines safely.

.

Effective

Good

Updated 13 April 2017

The service was effective.

People received effective care and support from staff who had the knowledge and skills they needed to meet people's needs.

Consent to care was always sought in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Where required people were supported with eating and drinking sufficient amounts.

People were supported to maintain good health and had access to healthcare services to receive on-going healthcare support.

Caring

Good

Updated 13 April 2017

The service was caring.

People who used the service and their representatives were treated with dignity and respect.

People's right to privacy was upheld.

People were encouraged to be involved in their care and to be as independent as they were able to be.

Responsive

Good

Updated 13 April 2017

The service was responsive.

People received care that met their individual assessed needs and preferences and the provider was responsive when people's needs changed.

The provider had a complaints procedure and people knew how to complain and were confident that their complaint would be dealt with appropriately.

Well-led

Good

Updated 13 April 2017

The service was well led.

There was a manager in post who was in the process of registering with us (CQC).

People who used the service, their relatives and staff spoke highly of the management and provider and of the standard of care being delivered.

The systems the provider had in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service were effective.