Crown House Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good.

This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Since the last inspection, the provider had invested in a new digital care planning system which allowed much more detailed and personalised information to be recorded. We saw a marked improvement in the care plans and risk assessments reviewed during this inspection. Records were more detailed, more person-centred and more reflective of people’s needs.

Accessible information assessments had also been completed to identify whether people needed any additional support to understand information or communicate their needs. This supported staff to tailor care more effectively to each person.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

We found improvements in the way risk assessments and clinical tools, such as Waterlow and MUST were being used, and people’s care records now contained clearer and more accurate guidance for staff.

The kitchen team continued to demonstrate good understanding of people’s dietary needs. Relatives praised the provider’s support for people with food intolerances and dietary restrictions. One relative said, “[Relative has food intolerances] and there hasn’t been one incident where staff have given them the wrong food.” This demonstrated the provider was taking assessed dietary needs seriously and ensuring these were reflected in day-to-day care and mealtime support.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Weekly GP ward rounds continued, and staff worked effectively with visiting health professionals such as district nurses, physiotherapists, opticians and hearing services. The physiotherapist had increased visits to twice monthly, and people were supported to attend the dentist, optician or hearing centre where needed, or the service arranged for assessments to be completed in the home when this was more suitable.

Communication between staff had improved significantly, including the use of the new digital system and regular handovers. This supported continuity of care and good teamwork across the service. External professionals continued to work positively with the home to support people’s changing needs.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Staff had the information they needed to identify and escalate health concerns, and people were supported to access healthcare when required. One person said, “They would ring a doctor if I was poorly.”

Relatives also spoke positively about how the service responded to health needs and appointments. One relative explained, “[Relative] has been to hospital a couple of times for outpatients, [staff] have been very good at thinking they might be a long while, they pack [relative] up with gluten free sandwiches, so they have something to eat with them.” This showed the provider was thinking ahead and supporting both health and wellbeing needs.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

The introduction of a new auditing system meant leaders now had much better oversight of care delivery, records, accidents and incidents. We reviewed evidence that saw audits were successfully identifying minor errors or issues, and actions were completed promptly and effectively. This was a significant improvement from the previous inspection.

Records demonstrated where accidents and incidents had occurred, the provider had responded appropriately and updated care plans and risk assessments in a timely way. The new falls audit was much more robust and supported improved monitoring and ensuring people had good outcomes.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Mental capacity assessments had improved significantly since the last inspection. We reviewed completed assessments and found these were now decision-specific, contained the relevant information, and where appropriate, best interest decisions had been completed.

The provider had also arranged staff training in the Mental Capacity Act area following the previous inspection, and records now demonstrated legal frameworks were being used more effectively to guide care decisions. It was also positive to see in a person’s care plan that leaders had considered confidentiality and advised staff to check with the person before disclosing information to family members.