We carried out a review of the data available to us about Crown Home Care Ltd on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Crown Home Care Ltd, you can give feedback on this service.
Crown Home Care Ltd is a domiciliary care service providing personal care to people. At the time of the inspection the service was supporting 72 people.
Not everyone who used the service received personal care. Care Quality Commission (CQC) only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People and relatives told us the service was safe. Staff understood signs of possible abuse and how to raise concerns. Risks to people were assessed and known by staff. People were supported by staff who had undergone appropriate recruitment checks. Medicines were administered appropriately. Incidents and accidents were thoroughly investigated.
People experienced good outcomes because staff were skilled and involved the appropriate healthcare professionals. Staff experienced effective support by senior staff and the registered manager including an induction, ongoing supervision and appraisal. This enabled them to provide good quality, effective care. People's hydration and nutritional needs were met.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
Staff provided caring and compassionate support. Staff supported people to have experiences that they enjoyed and that improved their wellbeing. People were encouraged to remain as independent in their daily activities as possible. People and relatives confirmed to us that they were always treated with dignity and respect.
People's needs were holistically assessed and met by the care provided. People were treated equally and without discrimination. People were supported to continue activities that were meaningful to them. Complaints were well managed and responded to appropriately. End of life care was provided effectively and compassionately.
We received positive feedback about the management of the service. The registered manager and senior staff promoted a positive, open and honest culture within the service and understood their regulatory responsibilities. There were appropriate systems in place to monitor and improve the service. The service had appropriate links with the local community for the benefit of people.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published February 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People and their relatives told us they felt safe using the service. There were processes in place to keep people safe and minimise any risks that may arise in the course of delivering care to them. This included the completion of risk assessments and checks on staff. Staff demonstrated an in-depth understanding of what may constitute signs of abuse and knew how to report such concerns.
Medicines were administered by appropriately trained staff who were aware of the potential risks involved in medicine management. Staff had received training to administer medicines safely, which included checks on their competences. Staff recorded each dosage of medicines and times of their administration by signing a medicine administration record (MAR) sheet. MAR sheets were checked by care workers during their visits and by senior staff during spot checks for any gaps or errors. Completed MARs were returned to the office every month for auditing.
The number of staff met people’s assessed needs. Staff were employed following robust recruitment procedures. Pre-recruitment checks had been carried out to ensure new staff were suitable to support people in their own homes and maintain people’s safety.
Each staff member had received induction and training to enable them to meet people’s needs effectively. Staff were knowledgeable about their roles and responsibilities. Staff were trained and had the skills and knowledge to meet people’s varying support needs.
Staff were provided with supervision meetings regularly and they felt supported by the management to perform their roles.
The registered manager ensured the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) had been applied when decisions were made for people. Staff ensured people were given choices about their support needs and day-to-day life. The registered manager was aware of the requirements to apply for and implement Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.
Some people needed support with eating and drinking. The kind of support varied, depending on people’s health status, their needs and preferences. Appropriate professional advice was sought where necessary to ensure people's health needs were supported.
People's care plans were person-centred and focused on what was important to people. Care plans were regularly reviewed and people and their relatives were involved in the reviews. People were encouraged to take part in activities that were important to them.
The registered provider had a compliments and complaints policy and a relevant procedure following the policy. Each person was given a copy of the complaints procedure. People told us that complaints were responded to and resolved. Staff assured us they knew how to complain and that they were confident any complaints would be listened to and acted on.
People, relatives and staff spoke highly of the registered manager; they found them approachable and supportive. The registered manager understood their responsibilities and ensured staff felt able to contribute to the development of the service. People who used the service were encouraged to provide their feedback on how the service could be improved. There were a number of quality assurance processes in place that regularly assessed the quality and effectiveness of the support provided.
We spoke with the registered manager, the care manager, the administrator and three carers. One carer told us 'The support is excellent. You can ring the office at any time to speak to someone'.
We looked at care documentation and records for four people with varying support needs. We found that the planning and delivery of care promoted peoples' choices, dignity and independence, and was flexible to meet their needs.
People were protected because staff were trained to recognise and respond to abuse and there were policies and procedures in place.
There were effective systems in place to ensure people were safe because staff were subject to rigorous recruitment procedures and a thorough induction.
People benefited from safe care and support because the provider monitored the quality of service that people received.