The Crown

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 the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 55 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff usually treated people kindly and with respect. They knew people well and often showed understanding and patience in their day-to-day support. People were generally spoken to in a warm and friendly way, and staff tried to make sure they felt comfortable and listened to. However, due to our concerns in relation to restrictive practices we could not be assured people were treaty with dignity as these restrictions had not been appropriately assessed and lacked clear guidance for staff.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or ensure their care and support reflected their personal preferences, backgrounds and unique needs. Some care plans were generic and lacked personalised information, meaning staff did not always have the guidance needed to deliver tailored support.

People were supported to make choices about their daily lives, and staff facilitated access to the community. Staff knew people well and recognised when individuals needed additional support. For example, one person became distressed at times, and staff understood that visiting local charity shops helped reduce this distress; they were able to identify early signs and supported the person to go out when needed. This meant people were enabled to maintain a degree of independence and control over activities that mattered to them.

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.For example, the provider had not planned effectively for how to support people during episodes of emotional distress. We identified that unplanned restraint was being used without appropriate planning or safeguards, which meant we could not be assured people’s immediate needs were being met safely. Despite these concerns, staff knew people well and were able to explain how they recognised changes in individuals’ moods and anticipated their needs based on this understanding.

The provider did not always promote the wellbeing of their staff. For example, we identified incidents where staff had been exposed to harm. These were not always captured as incidents and were not reviewed to ensure staff received support and debriefing or to identify any lessons learned. Despite our findings, staff told us they felt well supported.