CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Crescent House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe. Medicines, staffing, recruitment and risk management were found to be safe.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed before they moved in and reviewed regularly. Staff had relevant training, people had menu choices and they could access healthcare professionals.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind, patient and attentive. People were involved in decisions about their care and were treated with dignity and respect.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans included personal histories, preferences and detailed support guidance. People could choose activities, receive communication suited to them and, where possible, remain at the home for end of life care.
- Well-led?
- Good
- People, relatives and staff gave positive feedback. Audits, feedback systems and incident reviews were used to monitor quality and drive improvement.
What inspectors found, December 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care across all five areas.
This was an unannounced inspection on 3 December 2019. One inspector spoke with three people living at the home, the manager and two care workers. They reviewed care and medicines records, staff recruitment and supervision files, and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, safely managed medicines and detailed risk assessments. The home was clean and people said they felt safe.
People were involved in their care and treated with dignity. Staff knew people's preferences, supported their independence and offered activities based on their interests. The home also supported people to access health services and, where possible, to receive end of life care there.
The overall Good rating means inspectors found the service met the expected standards and provided consistently good care at the time of the inspection. The previous inspection, published in January 2017, was also rated Good.
Medicines and safety
Inspectors found that people received their medicines as prescribed and that staff had medicines training and competency checks.
“Medicines were managed safely and people received their prescribed medicines.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff knew people well, supported them patiently and involved them in choices about their daily care.
“People were supported by kind and caring staff who knew them well.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans recorded people's histories, preferences and support needs. Staff followed the guidance and adapted communication to people's needs.
“People received personalised care and care plans contained detailed information for staff about people's preferences.” from the report
Activities and relationships
Activities were based on people's interests. People could join group activities, spend time individually with staff or go out with support.
“People were supported to engage in activities and interests, and these were recorded in their care plans.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The home used audits, feedback and reviews of incidents to monitor the service and identify improvements.
“A system of audits had been implemented which measured and monitored the quality of care and the service overall.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you currently make sure care plans and risk assessments reflect my relative's changing needs?
- 02What dementia support and communication approaches would you use for my relative?
- 03What activities are available for someone with my relative's interests, including one-to-one time if they do not want group activities?
- 04How would you arrange healthcare and end of life support if my relative wished to remain at the home?
- 05How do you check that staffing levels are sufficient when people's needs change?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five rating areas; the report says both the premises and the care provided were looked at. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 December 2019 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, January 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, with improvements since the previous inspection.
Inspectors made an unannounced, comprehensive visit on 6 December 2016. They observed care, spoke with six people and staff, and checked care records, staff files, medicines, safety records and management audits.
They found improvements in the areas raised at the 2015 inspection. Activities were more varied, feedback was being used, staffing levels were assessed, quality checks were in place and policies had been updated.
People said they felt safe, well cared for and listened to. Inspectors rated the home Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led.
Meaningful activities
The home had increased the choice of activities and used people's feedback to shape them. People who stayed in their rooms were also offered individual activities and social contact.
“People had access to a range of activities and could choose what they wanted to do.” from the report
Safe medicines practice
Inspectors found that medicines were stored, given, recorded and disposed of safely. Records and audits were accurate and up to date.
“Medicines were managed safely and in accordance with current regulations and guidance.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff took time to understand people and supported their dignity, choices and independence. Inspectors saw calm, compassionate interactions.
“People were supported with kindness and compassion. They told us caring relationships had developed with staff who supported them.” from the report
Listening to feedback
The home used surveys, meetings and other feedback to identify improvements. Inspectors saw examples of changes made in response to people's and staff's views.
“The service asked people and other stakeholders to fill in surveys about the quality of the service and people's feedback was included in plans for future improvements.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you currently check that staffing levels match people's needs, including at weekends and when someone is unwell?
- 02How are residents involved in creating and reviewing their care plans?
- 03What activities are available for people who prefer to stay in their rooms, and how do you check that they are meaningful to them?
- 04How do you collect and act on feedback from residents, relatives and staff now?
- 05How do you check that medicines records, storage and reviews remain accurate?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection of all aspects of the home, and all five ratings were given at this inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 January 2017 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Crescent House
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- December 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2015Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 November 2010.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
46 live-in carers within about an hour of Brighton and Hove
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £1,020 to £1,280 a week. 37 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Lottie showed incredible patience and empathy, adapting her routine to fit in with Mum's moods. Most importantly, Lottie's cheerful manner helped Mum to get some enjoyment out of life.”
“He was infinitely patient with them and got on very well with us to the extent that we now regard him as a personal friend.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.