CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Crystal Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about the home's infection-control measures, including protective equipment, testing, admissions, hygiene and managing outbreaks. They said staff COVID-19 risk assessments and risk assessments for safe staff numbers in the break room still needed to be developed.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, April 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection-control measures, but some COVID-19 risk assessments still needed work.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 31 March 2021. It focused on how the home prevented and controlled COVID-19 infections.
Inspectors were assured that the home used protective equipment safely, followed social distancing and shielding rules, carried out testing, and had clear infection-control procedures. Staff had been trained in these procedures.
The home had adapted an area for visitors and provided visitor guidance in different languages. Staff had a large, well-ventilated break area, and many residents had received the COVID-19 vaccine.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give an overall quality rating or a rated judgement for safe care.
Visitor arrangements
The home had adapted an area for visits and provided COVID-19 guidance in different languages.
“An area within the home had been adapted to accommodate visitors, in line with current guidance.” from the report
Clear infection control
Inspectors found that infection-control procedures were clear, current and followed by staff.
“Infection prevention and control (IPC) procedures were clear and followed by staff.” from the report
Testing and vaccination
The home had regular COVID-19 testing for staff and residents, and inspectors noted good uptake of the vaccine among residents.
“A regular programme of testing for COVID-19 was in place for staff and people who lived in the service.” from the report
Ventilated staff area
The staff break area was large and well ventilated, helping to reduce the risk of infection spreading.
“The area used for staff breaks was large and well ventilated to reduce transmission.” from the report
Risk assessments needed
needs fixingThe provider still needed to develop COVID-19 risk assessments for staff and for the number of staff using the break room at one time.
“Risk assessments needed to be developed to ensure safe numbers of staff were occupying the staff room at any one time.” from the report
- 01Have you completed the COVID-19 risk assessment for every member of staff?
- 02What limits are now in place for the number of staff using the staff room at one time?
- 03Have you updated the visitors' COVID-19 risk assessment following changes in government guidance?
- 04How are residents and staff tested for COVID-19 now?
- 05How do you keep the infection-control policy up to date?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic; the service was inspected but not rated and the report does not assess all areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 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.
What inspectors found, February 2020
Crystal Court is rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care and major improvements, but end-of-life plans contained only basic information.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 14 January 2020. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff. They observed care and reviewed care, medicine, staff and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, medicines given as prescribed, suitable training, personalised care, good activities and improved checks on quality and safety.
The previous rating was Requires Improvement, published in January 2019, with two breaches of regulation. At this inspection, the inspectors found that improvements had been made and the home was no longer in breach.
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff on duty and medicines were stored, given and recorded appropriately. Staff had medicine training and their competence had been checked.
“Medicines were stored, administered and recorded appropriately.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People described staff as kind and respectful. Staff supported people's dignity, independence and personal communication needs.
“People were treated with dignity and respect. Staff supported people discreetly.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people's preferences and were reviewed regularly. Staff knew people well and adapted support to their needs.
“People received personalised care and support. Their care plans contained information about their likes, dislikes and preferences.” from the report
Improved leadership
The home had introduced systems to monitor quality and safety. Inspectors found improvements across the service since the previous inspection.
“Effective system were now in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service.” from the report
End-of-life planning
needs fixingEnd-of-life care plans were in place but did not contain much detail. Families should ask how the home records and follows a person's wishes as their needs change.
“People had end of life care plans in place, but these only contained basic information.” from the report
Staffing assessment tool
minorThe home had more staff than the dependency tool indicated were needed. Managers agreed to review whether the tool was working effectively.
“We discussed this with the manager and regional manager who agreed to review the effectiveness of the tool.” from the report
- 01How have you improved the detail in people's end-of-life care plans since this inspection?
- 02What changes have you made after reviewing the staffing dependency tool?
- 03Has the new manager now registered with CQC?
- 04How do you check that advice from health professionals, such as repositioning guidance, is followed?
- 05How are relatives involved when care plans are reviewed or people's needs change?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the care provided and the care home environment. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 February 2020 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 Crystal Court
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2020Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2019Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 November 2017.
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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of North Yorkshire
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 £1,010 to £1,290 a week. 27 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“She was always 'just present enough': attentive, available, kind and engaging, but without ever over-stepping any boundary”
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.