CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Crossley House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Risk assessments, infection control and medicine systems were generally safe, but records for creams and ointments were sometimes incomplete.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs and choices, and people were supported with food, drink and healthcare. Staff training and supervision were not always up to date or consistent.
- Caring?
- Good
- Caring was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was carried forward.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised, up to date and reviewed when people's needs changed. Staff supported communication, relationships, activities and end of life preferences.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Managers were visible and quality checks were regularly completed. Some staff felt unable to raise concerns because managers were under pressure, and a new manager was due to start.
What inspectors found, April 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some work still needed on creams records and staff training.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 1 and 4 March 2022. Inspectors observed people, spoke with staff and professionals, and reviewed care, medicine, recruitment and management records. They also checked infection control and COVID-19 vaccination requirements.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Good. Inspectors found that people were protected from harm, care plans were up to date, staff supported people's choices, and managers used audits and action plans to improve the service.
There were still some areas to improve. Records of creams and ointments were not always complete. Staff training was not always up to date or based on best practice. Views about staffing levels were mixed, especially at weekends and mealtimes.
The previous rating was Requires Improvement, published in July 2019. Inspectors found that improvements had been made and the home was no longer in breach of the regulations identified at that inspection. This inspection did not cover Caring, so that rating was carried forward from the previous inspection.
Personalised care
Care records described people's wishes, preferences, communication and important personal information. Families or significant others were involved in planning care.
“People's care records described their preferences, wishes and what was important to them.” from the report
Protection from harm
Staff knew people well and understood how to respond to abuse or other risks. Incidents and safeguarding concerns were reviewed and lessons were shared.
“People were kept safe from avoidable harm because staff knew them and understood what actions they should take to protect people from abuse.” from the report
Respect and choice
Staff supported people to make everyday choices and used the least restrictive options when safety measures were needed. People were treated respectfully during personal care and daily routines.
“We saw staff listening to people, offering choice and respecting the choices people made.” from the report
Health and nutrition support
People were supported to eat and drink enough, and staff monitored nutritional needs. Referrals were made to specialist health services when needed.
“People were supported to maintain their health and wellbeing, and to eat and drink enough to have a balanced diet.” from the report
Improved management
The home had improved since the previous inspection. Managers used audits and action plans to monitor safety, medicines, safeguarding and records.
“Quality assurance processes were effective and helped to hold staff to account, keep people safe, protect their rights and provide high quality care and support.” from the report
Creams and ointments records
needs fixingThere were gaps in records showing when creams and ointments had been applied. Inspectors recommended that the home embed a reliable recording system.
“There were some gaps in the records relating to the application of people's creams and ointments.” from the report
Staff training
needs fixingSome training was not current, did not include all staff or was not based on best practice. The training record did not include all learning completed locally.
“Staff training and induction was usually carried out face to face, but this had been affected by the Covid 19 pandemic.” from the report
Staffing consistency
needs fixingStaffing had been affected by a COVID-19 outbreak and some night shifts still used agency staff. Relatives gave mixed views, including concerns about weekends and mealtimes.
“There are not enough staff on at weekends definitely, and mealtimes” from the report
Management pressure
minorSome staff said they did not feel able to raise concerns because managers were under pressure. A new manager was due to start and apply for registration.
“Some staff said they hadn't felt able to raise concerns because, 'the managers are under a lot of pressure'.” from the report
- 01How are you now checking and recording every application of creams and ointments?
- 02Which staff have completed medicines training and the other refresher training needed for their roles?
- 03How many permanent and agency staff usually work at weekends, mealtimes and overnight?
- 04How will the new manager's arrival affect day-to-day care and management arrangements?
- 05How will you keep families updated if there is another infection outbreak or visits have to stop?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led; Caring was not inspected and its previous rating was carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 April 2022 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, April 2021
Crossley House was inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 24 March 2021. It focused on whether the home was prepared to prevent and control COVID-19 infections. The home was inspected but not rated.
Inspectors found screening and temperature checks for visitors, planned visits, effective use of PPE, regular testing and good hygiene. They said the home was clean, well maintained and well ventilated.
The home helped people stay in contact with relatives through phone and video calls, photos and videos. Staff were supported and trained, and decisions about COVID-19 tests and vaccinations were made in people's best interests when needed.
Infection control
The home was clean and well maintained, with procedures to reduce the risk of infection. Staff had enough PPE and received infection prevention training.
“The service was clean and well maintained and procedures throughout the building helped control the risk of cross infection.” from the report
Keeping families connected
Visits were planned around people's needs, and staff helped residents keep in touch with relatives by telephone and video calls when visits were not possible.
“Visits were planned and personalised, and staff supported people to make telephone and video calls to maintain social contact when visits could not take place.” from the report
Communication with relatives
The home made efforts to keep relatives informed about activities and their family member's wellbeing, including by sharing photos and videos.
“Staff made efforts to ensure relatives were kept informed about the activities and wellbeing of their family member.” from the report
Staff support
Staff were trained and supported to carry out their roles. Inspectors noted their efforts to keep people safe during a coronavirus outbreak.
“Staff were well supported and received training to help them carry out their role to a high standard.” from the report
Best-interest decisions
The home assessed people who could not consent to a COVID-19 test or vaccination and involved others in best-interest decisions.
“People who did not have the capacity to consent to a Covid-19 test or vaccination had been appropriately assessed and decisions were made in their best interests and in consultation with others.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How have your infection prevention and control arrangements changed since the inspection on 24 March 2021?
- 02How do you currently manage visits when there is an infection outbreak or other infection risk?
- 03How do you provide PPE and COVID-19 or other infection testing for residents and staff now?
- 04How do you keep relatives informed about a resident's wellbeing and activities?
- 05How are best-interest decisions made when someone cannot consent to a test or vaccination?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control measures during the COVID-19 pandemic; the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 April 2021 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 Crossley House
5 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- April 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- July 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2015Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 February 2011.
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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of South Gloucestershire
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. 32 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
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.