Crimson Hill Support

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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained 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 and/or with their family members.

People's needs were assessed before any care was offered to ensure there was a full understanding of each person’s needs and their care preferences. Assessments contained information about people's care needs, care preferences, preferred times of care, any religious or cultural beliefs and their personal relationships. Each of these assessments helped form the person’s care plan.

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 good practice and standards.

People were supported by a range of health and social care professionals. They worked closely with each person and the staff who supported them. This ensured staff followed current good practice. The provider had received positive feedback from health professionals about the care and support provided by staff. One professional said, “Partnership working is excellent.”

Staff were aware of the need to involve people and/or their relatives in all aspects of care and ensured they met people’s assessed needs. Staff understood each person's care needs. Risk assessments were detailed and regularly updated, with clear instructions for staff to follow.

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.

Staff collaborated effectively with families, GPs, nurses and other professionals such as speech and language therapists. Staff had worked closely with the lead dietician at the local hospital to ensure good healthcare support for 1 person who had a rare metabolic condition.

Communication was proactive, and feedback from relatives showed there was strong teamwork. One relative said staff were responsive and supportive. They had regular contact from staff and managers to discuss any issues or change in their family member’s needs. One relative said, “Yes, they [staff] always send feedback [about their family member]. They [staff] send me documents [about their family member]. I read them and send feedback; this week they sent me something. I always leave my feedback."

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives whenever possible.

People’s relatives said their family members were encouraged to be as independent and active as possible. One relative said, “They encourage [name to do as much as they can]. Staff gave clear clues, let him know what he is doing and happening and explain the next part of the process.”

People saw professionals when they needed to. Staff told us they had a very good relationship with health professionals and acted upon any advice they gave. We noted 1 person with a specific health condition had significantly improved and maintained their physical health due to consistent support provided by staff. Their relative said, “Amazing [progress], I can’t compliment them [staff] enough."

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.

People’s individual goals and aspirations were clearly described in their care plan. These were personalised, with some people supported through a carefully staged approach to help them achieve. Each outcome was monitored as part of the provider’s auditing process and at the individual’s care reviews.

People were supported to monitor their health and care needs. People had complex needs, so staff needed to be vigilant to ensure they identified any changes and acted upon any concerns they had. One relative told us, “Last year they [staff] noticed a lump on [name’s body]. This was looked into by the doctor and [name] was referred for a scan. It was all fine; it was all dealt with brilliantly."

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

People’s relatives said their family member’s rights were respected and staff always sought consent before providing any care. Staff understood how to gain consent from people before providing care, even if the person did not use words to communicate. One staff member said, “We highly respect people’s privacy and dignity and this includes getting their consent before providing personal care.”

There were systems in place to ensure people consented to their care, if they had capacity to do so, and to ensure the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) were followed when people lacked capacity to make decisions about their care. Details of others involved in people's care, who could support with decision making or advocate on their behalf, were included in people’s care records. Records showed the right people were consulted when a ‘best interest’ decision needed to be made for an individual who lacked capacity to make the decision themselves.