CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Crystal Hall
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention, safe visiting, admissions, protective equipment, testing, hygiene and outbreak planning. The provider also described measures to reduce the effect of COVID-19-related staffing pressures.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This key question was not covered by this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Crystal Hall: targeted infection-control inspection found good practice, but the service was inspected but not rated.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 12 January 2022. Inspectors looked mainly at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements, and whether COVID-19-related staffing pressures affected people.
Inspectors found systems to reduce the spread of infection. Visitors were screened, safe visiting areas were available, and people could keep in touch with relatives using technology when visits were not possible. Staff used protective equipment safely, and testing, vaccination and booster arrangements were in place.
The home was clean and hygienic. Inspectors were assured that admissions, social distancing, cleaning, outbreak planning and infection-control policies were being managed safely. The service was not given a quality rating, so this report does not rate the overall service or the other four key questions.
Visitor infection controls
Visitors were screened, their contact details were recorded, and areas were set up for safer visits.
“The provider had established systems to prevent visitors from spreading and catching infections.” from the report
Safe use of PPE
Inspectors saw staff using protective equipment safely, and there were enough supplies available.
“During our visit we observed staff using Personal Protective Equipment, (PPE) safely.” from the report
Clean environment
The home had cleaning schedules and regular deep cleans. Inspectors found the home clean and hygienic.
“The home was clean and hygienic. Cleaning schedules were in place.” from the report
COVID-19 planning
The provider had testing, vaccination and booster arrangements. The building could also be adapted to separate groups during an outbreak.
“The provider could adapt the layout of the building to support cohorting in the event of an outbreak.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What measures are currently in place to manage staffing pressures, and have staffing pressures affected care?
- 02How are visitors currently screened and supported to visit safely?
- 03What testing, vaccination and infection-control arrangements are now in place for staff and residents?
- 04How would the building be adapted if there were an infection outbreak?
- 05How can residents keep in touch with relatives if physical visits are restricted?
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated and the other key questions were not covered. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 February 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, January 2020
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, effective care, but safety systems required improvement.
This was an unannounced planned inspection. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and professionals. They reviewed care, medicines, accidents, incidents, training and management records, and checked the building.
People generally said they felt safe and received good care. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, clean surroundings, personalised care, good activities and respectful staff. The ratings for Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were Good.
The Safe rating was Requires Improvement. Some significant incidents, including people reported missing, had not been reported to the local safeguarding authority or the CQC. Records after unwitnessed falls were not complete, some staff handling medicines had not been trained, and some care reviews did not clearly show changes.
Kind and respectful staff
People told inspectors staff listened, understood their needs and treated them as individuals. Inspectors saw positive, unhurried interactions.
“The staff listen and understand my needs, they always help me, they know what's what.” from the report
Good activities and independence
The home put strong effort into meaningful activities inside and outside the home. People were supported to stay active, pursue interests and take part in community life.
“The staff team had put a significant amount of thought and effort to ensure people had high quality activities inside and outside the home to enhance their wellbeing.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough suitably qualified staff and saw them respond promptly to requests for help.
“The provider ensured there were enough suitably qualified staff to ensure people received support in line with their assessed needs.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's health needs, communication needs, preferences and interests. Adapted equipment was provided where needed.
“People's care records were written and designed in a person-centred manner.” from the report
Clean environment
The home was visibly clean, infection control arrangements were in place and staff had enough protective equipment.
“People were protected against the risk of infection. The home was visibly clean, and people said they thought the home was kept clean.” from the report
Safeguarding reports
seriousSome significant incidents were not reported to the local safeguarding authority or the CQC. This meant independent review could not always take place.
“We found incidents that had not been reported to the local safeguarding authority in line with local safeguarding protocols to allow independent review.” from the report
Records after falls
needs fixingRecords did not show clearly that people had been observed after unwitnessed falls for injuries that might appear later. The provider addressed this immediately.
“However, further improvements were required to demonstrate how staff monitored people for injuries that may appear following unwitnessed falls.” from the report
Medicine training
seriousNurses and senior carers had medicine training, but other staff who handled or administered medicines had not been trained. The provider took immediate action.
“We found nurses and senior carers were trained in medicines administration, however the rest of the staff had not been trained.” from the report
Care plan reviews
needs fixingSome reviews were brief and did not clearly show what had changed in people's needs. The manager said the review system would be improved immediately.
“This was because the care plan review system that they had in place was not robust to demonstrate clearly changes in people's needs.” from the report
End of life wishes
needs fixingThe home had arrangements for end of life care, but not everyone had been offered the chance to discuss and record their wishes.
“However, we discussed the need to ensure people were offered the opportunity to discuss their end of life care wishes.” from the report
Provider oversight
needs fixingThe provider needed stronger formal checks to show how it monitored the registered manager and compliance with regulations.
“However, the provider needed to establish formal checks to show how they provided oversight on the registered manager and how they were complying with regulations.” from the report
- 01What checks now make sure every safeguarding incident, including a person going missing, is reported to the right authorities?
- 02How do you record and review observations after an unwitnessed fall?
- 03Which staff handle or administer medicines, and how are their training and competence checked?
- 04How do you make sure care plan reviews clearly record changes in a person's needs?
- 05How will you offer and record each person's wishes about end of life care?
This was an unannounced planned inspection that looked at the care and the premises across all five key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 January 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 Hall
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- January 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2014GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 December 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
85 live-in carers within about an hour of Lancashire
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 £980 to £1,260 a week. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
“Thanks to Tracy, Dad was always immaculately dressed and clean, his meals were all home cooked and nutritionally well balanced and his home was always kept really clean and tidy.”
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.