Crescent House

“People were supported by kind and caring staff who treated them with respect and compassion. The home felt calm and welcoming, and staff worked together to promote people’s comfort and wellbeing. People and relatives said they felt safe and well cared for.”

“Safeguarding procedures were in place, and staff understood their roles in protecting people from abuse. However, management oversight of safety needed improvement. Some risk assessments, care plans and maintenance checks had not been kept up to date. The provider took prompt action to address these issues and improve monitoring once they were identified.”

“According to the provider’s dependency tool, staffing levels met the minimum requirement. However, deployment and support arrangements meant people did not always receive care in a consistent or timely way. Staff sometimes had to help with domestic tasks as well as care duties, which reduced time for direct support. New staff received induction and essential training, though some said they would benefit from more guidance. Teamwork and morale were positive.”

“The environment was clean, comfortable and well maintained. Bedrooms were personalised, and communal areas were homely and accessible. Infection control measures were in place, although audits needed to be more consistent to identify risks early.”

“People’s health and wellbeing were supported effectively. Staff knew people well and worked closely with healthcare professionals to meet changing needs. Referrals were made quickly, and visiting professionals said communication was good. Meals were adapted to individual needs, and staff encouraged people to eat, drink and stay as independent as possible. People’s cultural and spiritual needs were respected, and they were supported to stay connected with their community.”

“People and relatives said they were listened to and could raise concerns easily. Feedback was gathered through meetings and informal chats, and most said issues were resolved quickly. Some relatives said communication from management could be better, especially when care or safety measures changed.”

“Leadership and governance required improvement. There was no registered manager in post at the time of inspection, and management arrangements lacked stability. Audits and quality checks were not always regular or thorough enough to identify risks. The provider was in breach of regulations related to good governance. Systems for monitoring and improving care quality were not used consistently.”

“The provider was open and responsive during the inspection and took immediate action to strengthen audits, record-keeping and staff supervision. A new manager had been appointed to bring stability and improve governance. Staff said they felt supported and were committed to making improvements.”

“Overall, people received kind, person-centred care in a safe and comfortable environment. The provider responded positively to feedback and acted quickly to address shortfalls. Although further improvement is needed to ensure governance and leadership systems are firmly embedded, the service showed a strong commitment to ongoing improvement.”