You are here

Crawshaw Hall Medical Centre and Nursing Home Good

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 11 October 2013
Date of Publication: 13 November 2013
Inspection Report published 13 November 2013 PDF

The service should have quality checking systems to manage risks and assure the health, welfare and safety of people who receive care (outcome 16)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Benefit from safe quality care, treatment and support, due to effective decision making and the management of risks to their health, welfare and safety.

How this check was done

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 11 October 2013, observed how people were being cared for and checked how people were cared for at each stage of their treatment and care. We talked with people who use the service, talked with carers and / or family members and talked with staff.

We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

Our judgement

The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive.

Reasons for our judgement

There were systems in place for assessing and monitoring the quality of the service provided at the home. People using the service and their relatives were involved in making decisions and reviewing the care they received at the home.

Regular meetings of the residents and relatives association were held in the nursing home. Minutes of the last meeting confirmed that leisure activities and fund raising for the residents fund had been discussed. Although meetings for people living in the medical centre were not held regularly the manager said he always listened to people’s comments.

Arrangements were in place for people to be consulted about their experience of the service through annual satisfaction surveys distributed in July. These were evaluated by the provider and a report written which identified and addressed areas for improvement.

We saw that audits completed regularly by the managers included medication, infection control, fire prevention, the environment, and health and safety. However, the provider may find it useful to note that we were not shown any evidence to demonstrate that care plans were audited or that staffing levels were kept under review and determined by the dependency levels of people using the service.