Crossley Place

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

This means we looked for evidence that the service 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 remained good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness. They respected patients’ privacy and dignity. They understood the individual needs of patients and supported patients to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition. Staff involved patients in care planning and risk assessment and actively sought their feedback on the quality of care provided. Staff informed and involved families and carers appropriately.

We have not awarded this service a score for Caring.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Caring.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

We spoke with 3 patients. Patients we spoke with were generally positive about the service. They felt supported by staff and could go to them for help when they were struggling. Patients were mostly positive about staff and found them helpful and caring. Many patients had a member of staff with them at all times and told us they found it unsettling if this was not a member of staff they knew well. However, all patients had an individualised positive behavioural support (PBS) plan for staff to follow if a patient became distressed.

Through our observations, staff attitudes and behaviours when interacting with patients showed that they were discreet, respectful and responsive. They provided patients with help, emotional support and advice at the time they needed it. Patients and carers told us that staff were usually relaxed and built up a good rapport with them. The interactions we observed between staff and patients were warm, friendly and respectful.

Staff supported patients to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition. Staff directed patients to other services when appropriate and, if required, supported them to access those services.

Staff said they could raise concerns about disrespectful, discriminatory or abusive behaviour or attitudes towards patients without fear of the consequences. Patients we spoke with felt able to raise concerns or complaints and felt that they were listened to.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

The service made adjustments for patients, for example by ensuring people could access the premises and by meeting patients’ specific communication needs. Whilst at the time of our inspection no patients required adjustments, we were told patients with sensory needs could have their rooms adapted to meet their needs.

Staff ensured that patients could obtain information on their care and treatment, their rights and how to raise concerns or make a complaint. Information was provided in a form that was accessible to each patient. Staff used communication cards or easy-read materials with patients who found these helpful. Staff had developed easy-read information for a patient who was going for a physical healthcare examination, to explain what would happen at the appointment.

Managers ensured that staff and patients had easy access to interpreters or signers when required. Staff made information leaflets available in languages spoken by patients. At the time of our inspection all patients spoke English. Managers told us that as all admissions were planned, if an interpreter, signer or written materials were required these would be arranged before the person was admitted.

Patients had a choice of food to meet their dietary requirements and to account for allergies and intolerances. Managers told us food to meet the needs of religious and ethnic groups would be sourced if required. The service had a chef, and staff also cooked meals. Staff preparing food had a list of patient’s allergies, food preferences and relevant risk plans. Food was prepared to accommodate patient need or choice with regards to texture or consistency. Patients gave us mixed feedback about the food provided. Staff were working with patients to provide healthier food choices.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Staff considered how they could work with each patient and developed a bespoke package of care that was tailored to their individual needs. All patients had at least one member of staff allocated to them, and this could be used to provide the care and support the person needed. Each patient had their own apartment which was decorated or adapted to their personal preferences, whilst taking account of any risks.

Staff worked with patients to make decisions about their care. All patients had a multidisciplinary team meeting at least once a month. Some patients were able to engage with staff more than others and had developed collaborative care plans. All patients had a positive behavioural support (PBS) plan. These were in patients’ care records, or on display so that staff could quickly respond to patients’ needs.

Patients were supported to take part in activities that they chose, and that reflected their interests. This included activities both inside the service and its grounds, and external trips and visits. Activities were tailored to the personal interests of the patient and what they enjoyed doing.

Staff supported patients to maintain contact with their families where possible. Patients were supported to keep in touch with their families through face-to-face visits or remotely on phone or video calls. Patients were admitted from different countries, so families were often distant from the hospital. The service supported families to keep in touch with their relatives, visit the service when possible, and attend multidisciplinary team meetings either in person or remotely. Patients were individually supported in how and when they contacted their relatives, which was every day for some patients.

Carers were involved in patients’ care, and were invited to meetings and events. Staff asked carers for feedback about the service. There was a carer forum, but it could be difficult to get people involved as it was a small service and some carers lived far away or had limited contact with their relatives. Relatives were sent a Carers’ Pack which contained information about the service. Carers were encouraged to take part in a carers survey, which was sent to all relatives who were involved in a patients care, with the permission of the patient.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff were aware of and dealt with any specific risk issues, such as self-harm, and care planned for these accordingly. Staff identified and responded to changing risks to, or posed by, patients. Staff completed a risk assessment for all patients and this was routinely reviewed by the multidisciplinary team. All patients were allocated at least 1 member of staff at all times. Some patients had more than 1 member of staff with them, and this and their level of restriction was reviewed regularly.

Staff used de-escalation techniques to reduce the need for physical interventions when patients became distressed. All patients had a positive behavioural support (PBS) plan, where patients and staff identified potential triggers and preferred responses. Staff supported patients to manage their distress, and only used physical restraint as a last resort.

There were appropriate systems and guidance in place to support staff in responding to immediate needs. There were nurse call alarms in bedrooms and staff carried personal alarms to summon urgent help when required.

Staff could quickly access the necessary equipment in the event of a medical emergency. Staff knew where emergency equipment was stored and how to use it. This included ligature cutters, resuscitation equipment and emergency medicines. Staff carried out emergency drills for fire, medical emergencies and resuscitation. Overall, the response was good, and mangers shared areas for improvement with staff.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff mostly felt respected, supported and valued. Staff felt positive and proud about working for the provider and their team. Staff had access to support for their own physical and emotional health needs through an occupational health service and an external employee assistance programme, that included access to counselling. The provider recognised staff success within the service, which included through staff awards. Staff had a large staff room where they could have breaks, cook and eat food. Staff told us they could apply for flexible working, and the service had accommodated this provided it did not impact on the service.

The findings of the provider’s staff survey were available in November 2025. There was a 72% response rate for Crossley Place. The overall findings indicated a 79% employee engagement rate and an 83% value for staff wellbeing, which were higher than the overall scores for Elysium Healthcare. The overall findings were positive. The highest scores were in relation to patient safety being a priority in the organisation, staff having a clear understanding of what was expected of them, and staff having the training they needed to do their job effectively. The lowest scores (around 15% negative responses, with the remainder positive or neutral) were receiving meaningful recognition when they do a good job, fair rewards for the work they do (pay and benefits), and that they can ‘speak up’ without fear of the consequences. Managers had developed an action plan following the survey to engage with staff and address the areas of concern.

Staff sickness in the last 12 months was 2.47%. This was lower than the average for the provider.