What the CQC found at Crowstone House

People and relatives generally said staff were kind, polite and caring. Inspectors observed positive interactions and respectful support with privacy and dignity.

“People's relatives told us staff were kind and caring in their support and we observed positive interactions between people and staff during our inspection.” from the report

Staff supported people to eat and drink, attended health appointments with them and involved relevant healthcare professionals when needs changed.

“The provider responded to people's changing health needs, making referrals to the relevant health professionals when necessary.” from the report

Staff received an induction, relevant training and regular supervision. Staff said they felt valued and supported.

“Staff completed an induction when starting in their role and undertook a range of relevant training.” from the report

Inspectors were assured that infection prevention arrangements were in place. Visitors were welcomed without restrictions.

“The provider ensured visitors were able to come into the service without restrictions and in line with government guidance.” from the report

Inspectors found environmental hazards and gaps in safety checks. Some health risk assessments lacked enough guidance, and people were briefly left without support in lounge areas when they were at risk of falling.

“The provider had not effectively assessed and managed risks to people's health and safety.” from the report

A person was receiving a sedative medicine every day even though the written protocol described different circumstances for giving it. The care plan did not explain why this had changed or when it should be reviewed.

“This meant there was a risk the person may be unnecessarily sedated.” from the report

The home could not always show that people received meaningful pastimes based on their choices. Records had gaps, and people cared for in bed may not have received enough interaction.

“However, it was not clear how often the wellbeing lead was able to spend time with people in different areas of the building, particularly those who were cared for in bed.” from the report

Some care plans did not clearly show people's preferences or how they and their relatives had been involved. Incident, daily care and medicines records were not always complete or accurate.

“The provider was not able to demonstrate robust oversight over the quality of people's care documentation.” from the report

One staff file did not contain a full employment history, although the provider later supplied evidence that this had been added. CQC recommended better storage and checking of recruitment records.

“We found one member of staff who did not have a full employment history recorded.” from the report