Care homes across Scotland including Cramond Residence are regularly vetted by the Care Inspectorate. Indeed, care services in Scotland cannot operate unless they are registered with the body.

This Inspectorate looks at the quality of care in care homes across Edinburgh and the rest of the country to ensure they meet the highest standards. Where improvements are needed, the Care Inspectorate supports service providers to make positive changes.

The Care Inspectorate produces regular reports on the homes it visits. The most recent report for Cramond Residence was produced in March of 2020. You can download the report from the organisation’s website here.

cramond uniforms

The report looks at the performance of Cramond Residence in five main areas. We achieved the following scores – all of which were ‘very good’ or ‘good’.

How well does Cramond Residence support people’s wellbeing?
5 – Very Good

How good is Cramond Residence’s staffing?
5 – Very Good

How good is Cramond Residence’s setting?
5 – Very Good

How good is Cramond Residence’s leadership?
5 – Very Good

How well is Cramond Residence’s care and support planned?
4 – Good

The Inspectorate also received views from residents at the home and from their relatives. Some examples of their comments included:

“Cramond Residence has been my relative’s home for 1 year – in that time, I have been extremely happy with the level of care and all staff levels are excellent and I have peace of mind that my relative is safe and well cared for. Well done Cramond Residence”.
“My relative was one of the first service users in the facility and has always been treated with the utmost care and attention. The staff are very friendly and helpful and nothing is too much of a problem for them. A warm welcome awaits you at reception and there is always a hot drink available after your journey to the residence. Keep up the good work”.

What the Inspectorate said about Cramond Residence:

How we support people’s wellbeing:

“We observed staff interactions with people and found that it was warm and respectful. We saw that care staff, administrators, ancillary, and management teams knew [the} people who lived there, which meant people felt secure and confident with staff who cared for them.”

Our staff team:

“Staff that we met demonstrated knowledge and competency in their roles and had the support to develop their skills to support people who used the service. The provider had an overview of all staff training, supervision, and appraisals ensuring that staff had the relevant skills to support the people who used the service. This meant that people’s health and wellbeing was being maintained, and that people were kept safe. It is important that people who used this service have confidence in the staff who care and support them. We saw the level of training, support and supervision most staff received. This showed that they were competent, skilled, and were able to reflect this in their practice, whilst keeping people safe.”

Our setting:

“Our first impressions on entering the home were very good. The surroundings are undoubtedly quite luxurious with lots of areas for people to stop and chat or relax. We found the home was welcoming and secure with an appropriate entry system, reception area and visitors’ book for people to sign in and out. This promoted a safe environment for people and their visitors.”

Our leadership:

“People who lived in the service and their relatives were confident that the service was well managed. We saw evidence that the service had used audits and evaluations of different aspects of the service to make improvements which had resulted in improved outcomes for people living in the service. Examples of these included: falls analysis, medication, nutrition, and maintenance. These ensured that people were kept safe.”

How our care and support is planned:

“We found that people who were supported by different organisations worked well together by sharing information. Examples of these include physiotherapists, pharmacists, podiatrists and GPs, which was appropriate, confidential, and respectful. This meant that people who used this service could be confident that they received responsive care and support. We reviewed personal plan evaluations and six-monthly review minutes. We found that the standard of care planning and recording was good.”