Archived: Crystal

Is the service safe?

Is the service effective?

Is the service caring?

Is the service responsive?

Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, looking at records and speaking with people using the service, their relatives, and members of staff.

Please read the full report for evidence that supports our summary.

Is the service safe?

People were cared for in an environment that was safe, clean and hygienic. One visitor told us, 'I'd stay there, I'd eat there. The kitchen is clean.'

We found that staff were supported with regular training and supervision to provide safe and appropriate care. Comments from people using the service included the following: 'I love it here.' 'The staff have been so caring and considerate. They come in and sit and talk with me.'

We looked at a random selection of care plans for people using the service. We found that they were person centred and reflected the individual needs of each person. We saw that they covered a comprehensive range of care and healthcare needs and included appropriate risk assessments. We found that care plans were up to date and regularly reviewed which supported staff to deliver safe and appropriate care.

We found that there were procedures in place to deal with foreseeable emergencies. The manager and a senior member of staff lived nearby and operated an on call contact scheme out of hours. The training records we saw showed that staff had completed first aid training.

The Care Quality Commission monitors operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. We saw that the service had policies and procedures in place. At the time of the inspection there were no DoLS authorities in place.

Is the service effective?

People's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. We were told that an assessment of people's needs was carried out before people moved in.

We found that there was a timetable of activities for each day. Some people told us that they preferred to be left alone to do what they liked. Other people joined in activities that took them outside of the home.

Is the service caring?

We observed that staff appeared to be kind and caring and saw and heard positive examples of care. We spoke with people using the service and visitors. Most of their comments about staff and the care and treatment they received were positive. The comments included: 'They seem to be tolerant, patient and kind.' 'I go every week and I'm happy to leave [name of relative] there.'

Is the service responsive?

People expressed their views and were involved in making decisions about their care and treatment. We saw that care plans were person centred and recorded people's preferences.

People and staff were listened to and where appropriate the service responded.

Is the service well led?

People who use the service, their representatives and staff were asked for their views about their care and treatment and they were acted on. We spoke with people using the service, visitors and members of staff who generally provided positive feedback about the openness of the service and approachability of the manager.

We found that the service had regular audits and meetings in place to assess and monitor the quality of their service provision.

At that stage we asked the provider to take up telephone references immediately and not to allow the member of staff to work unaccompanied until such time that satisfactory written references were received.

At this inspection we had returned to the home to ensure that satisfactory checks had been completed. We found checks had been completed and have therefore removed the compliance action.

It was positive to note, that a number of recommendations made at the last inspection which related to training of staff in particular, had also been actioned. This includes three days training on dementia awareness from Croydon Care Support Team.

As people's communication needs were limited we completed a Short Observational Framework Inspection (SOFI) which is an observational tool to look at people's well-being. This was completed over the lunch period and gave us information about the food that was provided by the home, but also staff interaction with people who used the service.

We found the home was fresh and clean and record keeping was in general up to date.

However, we have made a compliance action, which means we have asked the provider to tighten up procedures when recruiting new staff. We have asked the provider to send us a report setting out how and by when changes will be made to make they comply with legislation. We will monitor the implementation to make sure that it is actioned.

There were also some minor areas that could have improved the running of the home, these have been shared with the provider and appear within the body of the report.

As people's communication needs were limited we completed a Short Observational Framework Inspection (SOFI) which is an observational tool to look at people's well being. This was completed over the lunch period and gave us information about the food that was provided by the home, but also staff interaction with people who used the service.

We found that the paperwork relating people who lived at the home was comprehensive, up to date and accurate. Staff in general had a good understanding of people's needs and were able to respond appropriately.

There were some minor areas that could have improved the running of the home, these have been shared with the provider and appear within the body of the report.