Archived: Crystal Court

Updated 16 April 2016

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 5 February 2016 and was unannounced. The inspection was carried out by one adult social care inspector and a specialist professional advisor who specialised in providing services to people living with dementia.

Prior to the inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service, such as notifications we had received from the registered manager. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send to the Commission by law. We planned the inspection using this information. We also contacted the local authority contracting team to ask for their views on the service and to ask if they had any concerns.

During our inspection we carried out observations of staff interacting with people and completed a structured observation using the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who were not able to talk with us. We spoke with five people who lived at the service and eight relatives.

During the inspection visit we reviewed eight people’s care records, three staff recruitment files, records required for the management of the home such as audits, minutes from meetings, satisfaction surveys, and medication storage and administration records. We also spoke with ten members of staff, including nurses, senior care assistants, care assistants, the activities organiser, the chef, the deputy manager and the operations manager. The registered manager was not present during the inspection as they were taking annual leave.

Updated 16 April 2016

This inspection was unannounced and was carried out on 5 February 2016. At the previous inspection, which took place on 17 June 2014 the provider was meeting regulations. Crystal Court is registered to provide accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care, treatment of disease disorder or injury and diagnostic and screening for up to 62 people. It is divided into three units; a general nursing unit; a unit for people living with dementia who required residential care and a unit for people living with dementia who require nursing care. There were 46 people living at Crystal Court on the day we inspected, 30 of whom required nursing care.

There was a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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. The registered manager had also completed a Provider Information Return (PIR).The PIR is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

Crystal Court provided good care and support for the people that lived there. People we spoke with said they felt safe and they spoke positively about the care and support they received. Staff recruitment processes included carrying out appropriate checks to reduce the risk of employing unsuitable people.

Staff knew the correct procedures to follow if they considered someone was at risk of harm or abuse. They received appropriate safeguarding training and there were policies and procedures to support them in their role.

The service had systems in place for recording and analysing incidents and accidents so that action could be taken to reduce risk to people’s safety. Risk assessments were completed so that risks to people could be minimised whilst still supporting people to remain independent.

The home had safe systems in place to ensure people received their medication as prescribed; this included regular auditing by the home and the dispensing pharmacist. Staff were assessed for competency prior to administering medication and this was reassessed regularly.

Staff received appropriate training, supervision and support. Staff understood their roles and

responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) to ensure that people’s rights were protected when they were unable to make decisions.

There was a variety of choices available on the menus, snacks were freely available throughout the home and people were supported to have sufficient food and drinks to meet their dietary needs.

People had good access to health care services and the service was committed to working in partnership with healthcare professionals.

Staff were caring, kind and compassionate and cared for people in a manner that promoted their privacy and dignity. People felt listened to and had their views and choices respected.

People were involved in the decisions about their care and their care plans provided information on how to assist and support them in meeting their needs.

People were involved in activities they liked and these were linked to previous life experience, interests and hobbies. Visitors were made welcome to the home and people were supported to maintain relationships with their friends and relatives.

People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy and all the people we spoke with told us that they felt that they could talk with any of the staff if they had a concern or were worried about anything.

The provider actively sought the views of people using and visiting the service. They were asked to complete an annual survey and this enabled the provider to address any shortfalls and improve the service.

The service had a quality assurance system, and records showed that identified problems and opportunities to change things for the better had been addressed promptly. As a result we could see that the quality of the service was continuously improving.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home and the quality assurance systems in place. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service. They told us the registered manager was supportive and promoted positive team working.