You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 25 February 2016

This was an unannounced inspection, carried out on 27 January 2016.

The Croft is a care home for four adults with a learning disability. Although located in a residential estate in Ellesmere Port, the 'semi-rural' area surrounding the home ensures the privacy of service users is protected. A range of local shops, pubs and other facilities are within easy reach of the home. The home is a four-bed bungalow, with all the bedrooms being single.

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.

We last inspected this location in April 2014 and we found that the registered provider met all the regulations we reviewed.

Relatives told us they felt people were safe at the service. Staff had a good understanding and were aware of the different types of abuse. Staff knew the process for reporting any concerns they had and for ensuring people were protected from abuse. Staff told us they would not hesitate to raise concerns and they felt confident that they would be fully investigated in partnership with the relevant external agencies.

There were safe systems in place for the management of medicines. Medicines were administered safely and administration records were up to date. People received their medication as prescribed and staff had completed competency training in the administration and management of medication.

People’s needs were assessed and planned for and staff had information about how to meet people’s needs. Support plans we reviewed were personalised and always promoted the involvement of the person or other important people such as family members. Staff were responsive in meeting changes to people’s health needs.

Staff were caring and they always treated people with kindness and respect. Observations showed that staff were respectful of people’s privacy and dignity and encouraged people to maintain their independence. Staff were skilled in recognising and using peoples preferred method of communication.

Policies and procedures were in place to guide staff in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The registered manager and staff had a good knowledge and understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and their role and responsibility linked to this.

Robust recruitment processes were followed and there were sufficient qualified, skilled and experienced staff on duty to meet people’s needs.

Staff received support through supervision and team meetings which enabled them to discuss any matters, such as their work or training needs. There was a programme of planned training which was relevant to the work staff carried out and the needs of the people who used the service.

The service was well- managed by a person described as “approachable and helpful”. Systems were in place to check on the quality of the service. Records were regularly completed in line with the registered provider’s own timescales. We were notified as required about incidents and events which had occurred at the service.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 25 February 2016

The service was safe

People were supported by care staff who understood what was needed to keep people safe.

Management of medication promoted people’s health. . People received their medicines as prescribed.

Robust recruitment procedures were in place to ensure only suitable people worked at the service. 

Effective

Good

Updated 25 February 2016

The service was effective

Policies and procedures in relation to the MCA and DoLS were in place and accessible to staff. Staff had a good awareness of their responsibilities under the MCA and DoLS.

An ongoing programme of training was provided for all staff and they received appropriate support within their roles.

Staff ensured people had access to healthcare professionals when they

needed it.

Caring

Good

Updated 25 February 2016

The service was caring

People’s needs and wishes were respected by staff. Staff ensured that people’s dignity and privacy were maintained.

Staff respected people’s need to maintain as much independence as possible.

People were supported to access local advocacy services. Contact information was held at the service and made available to people.

Responsive

Good

Updated 25 February 2016

The service was responsive

Assessments and support plans were detailed and informative and they provided staff with enough information to meet people’s diverse needs.

There was a clear complaints procedure in place. Relatives were confident that their complaints would be dealt with appropriately.

Activities were planned into each day. Support plans recorded people’s individual interests and hobbies.

Well-led

Good

Updated 25 February 2016

The service was well led

The registered provider had effective quality assurance systems in place to monitor the service provided. These were always completed in line with the registered provider’s timescales.

The service was managed by a person registered with CQC. Staff and relatives told us that the manager was supportive and approachable.