- Homecare service
Crystalline Business Solutions Limited
Assessment report published 27 October 2026
Contents
On this page
- Overview
- Person-centred Care
- Care provision, Integration and continuity
- Providing Information
- Listening to and involving people
- Equity in access
- Equity in experiences and outcomes
- Planning for the future
Responsive
Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.
At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.
This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.
Person-centred Care
The provider did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. .
Personalised care plans were in place which detailed how people wished to be supported, and what level of support should be provided at each call. There was clear instruction in people’s records about their reablement goals and what they would like to achieve whilst receiving support.
Support plans included information about people’s support needs, but there was little information about what was important to the person, what their interests were and if there were any specific needs people had regarding their culture or religion. We spoke to the management team about this, and they agreed the inclusion of this information would help to provide more personalised care for people, and they would update their support plans.
Care provision, Integration and continuity
The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. Staff worked well with other healthcare professionals when people required it. For example, with the occupational therapists, physiotherapists and district nurses to ensure people received continuity in care.
Providing Information
The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.
Staff were aware of people’s communication needs and communicated with them in a way the person understood. Staff understood the importance of non-verbal communication, including a person’s body language when supporting them. The management team had looked into different technology options to support with communication. However, these were not required at the time of our assessment.
Listening to and involving people
The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.
People were aware of how to make a complaint and would feel comfortable speaking up should they need to. One person said, “I would always complain if I had to and I would know how to, but I haven’t needed to so far.”
Equity in access
The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Staff signposted people and provided them with any support they required to access other services.
Equity in experiences and outcomes
Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.
Staff were respectful of people’s individual needs. This included in relation to their religion and culture. If people needed time and space for prayer this was provided and staff respected their faith.
Planning for the future
People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.
At the time of our assessment people did not require any support regarding end-of-life care. However, staff had received training should people require this support. People’s care records were clear about whether they choose to be for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and who had do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions in place.