Crimson Manor

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 – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.At our last assessment we rated this key question Requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to Good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Care records were detailed and personalised, reflecting people's individual needs and preferences. A particularly positive feature was the inclusion of a 'desired outcome' section, which captured what was important to the person in their own words. Records provided staff with clear guidance on how to deliver care and support safely and consistently. Relatives were able to access their family member’s electronic care records. One relative said, “I have an app, so I can see what [family member] is doing. They ring me if there are any problems.”

People received personalised care from staff who knew them well and understood how to meet their needs. For example, one relative told us how their family member liked to wear the same clothes every day and told us how staff took their clothes away at night, washed them, folded them and put them back in the bedroom so the person could wear them again the next day.

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 understood people’s needs and worked proactively with a range of health and social care professionals to ensure people received coordinated care and continuity of support. For example, weight records were maintained, and there was clear evidence of referrals to and involvement from relevant healthcare professionals where concerns had been identified.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Information was available in different formats to meet individual requirements. Pictorial information, Google translate and talking mats were used to communicate with people. Communication plans identified any aids required and we saw people had these in place, for example, hearing aids and glasses.

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.

Systems were in place to enable people and relatives to share feedback and raise any concerns. The registered manager confirmed they were available to, and engaged with people and relatives continually, gaining feedback through reviews and informal discussions. One relative confirmed they were involved in care plan reviews for their family member and said notice was taken about things they raised but they felt the improvements were not sustained.

There was a system in place to respond to any concerns and complaints. Records we reviewed showed appropriate and timely action had been taken in response to complaints and feedback provided to the complainant.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Reasonable adjustments were made to meet individual needs, and flexible approaches ensured people could access care in ways that suited their preferences.

Staff received training in equality, diversity and inclusion and used this knowledge to ensure people did not experience discrimination and their rights under the Equality Act 2010 were respected.People had equal access to care, support and treatment. Protocols were in place so people and staff knew what to do in an emergency.

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.

The registered managers and staff team worked together to improve people’s overall quality of life, ensuring they had the same opportunities as people who did not use services. For example, social activities, accessing health services and maintaining relationships with family and friends.

People received personalised care and reasonable adjustments were in place to support equity in experience and outcomes. For example, mobility aids were to hand and communication tools used effectively to ensure people had equally access to information.

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.

Personalised end of life care plans were in place. They detailed action to be taken in an emergency medical situation and also reflected people’s preferences in relation to physical, emotional and spiritual support. Where people, or their relatives, did not wish to discuss the person’s end of life arrangements, this was respected, with a plan to revisit the subject differently in the future.