Croft House

Updated 7 April 2022

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

As part of CQC’s response to care homes with outbreaks of COVID-19, we are conducting reviews to ensure that the Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) practice is safe and that services are compliant with IPC measures. This was a targeted inspection looking at the IPC practices the provider has in place. We also asked the provider about any staffing pressures the service was experiencing and whether this was having an impact on the service.

This inspection took place on 16 February 2022 and was announced. We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection.

Updated 7 April 2022

Croft House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Croft House is registered to accommodate six people with learning disabilities; at the time of our inspection there were five people living in the home.

At the last inspection in November 2016 this service was rated as requires improvement. At this inspection, we found that improvements had been made and sustained and the service was rated good overall.

The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People received care from staff that knew them and were kind, compassionate and respectful. There were usually sufficient staff to provide the care and support people required.

People’s needs were assessed prior to moving to the home, care plans based on their individual needs and preferences were in place and were kept under review. Risks to people had been identified and measures put in place to mitigate any risk. However, one person had an identified risk and there was not a plan in place to give staff guidance how to reduce the risk.

Medicines were managed in line with the prescriber’s instructions. The processes in place usually ensured the administration and handling of medicines was suitable for the people who used the service. The registered manager was in the process of reviewing medicines with the GP to make sure there were clear instructions on when to give all medicines.

There were appropriate recruitment processes in place and people felt safe in the home. Staff understood their responsibilities to keep people safe from any risk or harm and knew how to respond if they had any concerns.

Systems were in place to ensure the premises was kept clean and hygienic so people were protected by the prevention and control of infection. There were arrangements in place to make sure action was taken and lessons learned when things went wrong, to improve safety across the service.

Staff were supported through regular supervisions and undertook training, which helped them to understand the needs of the people they were supporting. People and where appropriate their relatives were involved in decisions about the way in which their care and support was provided.

People’s diverse needs were met by the adaptation, design and decoration of premises.

Staff understood the need to undertake specific assessments where people lacked capacity to consent to their care and / or their day-to-day routines. However, these had not always been completed for a specific decision. Care plans included information about how the person had been supported to make their own decision.

People’s health care and nutritional needs were met and relevant health care professionals were appropriately involved in people’s care.

People were supported to take part in activities which they wanted to do, and encouraged to participate in events within the local community. Care plans were focused on the person and their wishes and preferences

People were cared for by staff who were respectful of their dignity and who demonstrated an understanding of each person’s needs. Relatives spoke positively about the care their relative received and felt that they could approach management and staff to discuss any issues or concerns they had.

There were comprehensive systems in place to monitor the quality and standard of the home. Regular audits were undertaken and any shortfalls addressed. Concerns we had identified about the registered manager having time to work on improvements at our previous inspection were being addressed on an on-going basis. They were supported by a deputy manager and senior managers to improve the quality of the service provided.

The registered manager was approachable and people felt confident that any issues or concerns raised would be addressed and appropriate action taken.

The service strived to remain up to date with legislation and best practice and worked with outside agencies to continuously look at ways to improve the experience for people.