Attention: The information on this website is currently out of date and should not be relied upon..

Care Services

carehome, nursing and medical services directory


Crisis House, Redhill.

Crisis House in Redhill is a Hospital specialising in the provision of services relating to caring for adults under 65 yrs, mental health conditions and treatment of disease, disorder or injury. The last inspection date here was 18th October 2013

Crisis House is managed by Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust who are also responsible for 18 other locations

Contact Details:

    Address:
      Crisis House
      Great Meadows
      Redhill
      RH1 6JJ
      United Kingdom
    Telephone:
      01883383838
    Website:

Ratings:

For a guide to the ratings, click here.

Safe: No Rating / Under Appeal / Rating Suspended
Effective: No Rating / Under Appeal / Rating Suspended
Caring: No Rating / Under Appeal / Rating Suspended
Responsive: No Rating / Under Appeal / Rating Suspended
Well-Led: No Rating / Under Appeal / Rating Suspended
Overall: No Rating / Under Appeal / Rating Suspended

Further Details:

Important Dates:

    Last Inspection 2013-10-18
    Last Published 0000-00-00

Local Authority:

    Surrey

Link to this page:

    HTML   BBCode

Inspection Reports:

Click the title bar on any of the report introductions below to read the full entry. If there is a PDF icon, click it to download the full report.

14th August 2013 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

People expressed their views and were involved in making decisions about their care and treatment. At this inspection we looked at the care plans for two people. We saw that people’s needs were assessed and that in each record we looked at the person themselves had made comments about their needs or care.

Systems had been put in place which evidenced that people’s care plans were reviewed to ensure they were up to date. We found that care plans provided detailed information and guidance for staff to be able to meet people’s needs. Care plans included risk assessments based on the persons emotional and health needs. We could not see any evidence at the service that the risk from foreseeable emergencies had been assessed or that staff would know what to do in an emergency.

We found that the premises and grounds were well maintained and clean. We saw that cleaning schedules were being adhered to and that the standard of cleanliness in the home was good.

People told us that their needs were met and that staff responded to them effectively if they required support; staff told us that there were enough staff to meet people’s needs, although some staff told us that they were required to act as back up for the out of hours help line, which sometimes took them away from their main duties.

We saw that the provider gave people discharge questionnaires on leaving the service and people had made positive comments. For example people said, “I found it reassuring to have a copy of my care plan”, “I found the literature that I was given helpful” and there were a number of positive comments about staff.

 

 

Latest Additions: