• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: The Croft

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

83 Front Road, Woodchurch, Ashford, Kent, TN26 3SF (01233) 861038

Provided and run by:
The Leo Trust

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

16 December 2014

During a routine inspection

This was an unannounced inspection carried out on 16 December 2014. The previous inspection was carried out in June 2014, when breaches had been found with six regulations. This inspection included following up the action taken by the service in response to the breaches.

The Croft provides accommodation and personal care for up to four people with a learning disability. It specifically provides a service for older people who have a learning disability and some who are living with dementia. At the time of the inspection there were four people living at The Croft.

The service does not have a registered manager; the manager had submitted an application to the Care Quality Commission to register. 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 told us they received their medicines when they should. However we found shortfalls in some areas of medicine management. Where people were prescribed medicine “as required”, there was a lack of proper guidance to enable staff to administer these medicines safely and consistently. Where people were prescribed “one or two” sachets, we were unable to ascertain what had been administered as staff had not recorded this detail.

People were not always protected by robust recruitment procedures. Records required by the law to be held on staff files that would reflect that a robust recruitment process had been followed were not always present. For example, a full employment history with written explanations regarding any gaps. New staff underwent a thorough induction programme, which including relevant training courses and shadowing experienced staff, until they were competent to work on their own. Although they had not undertaken training specific to people’s needs, such as dementia training.

The service was well maintained. There were systems and checks in place to help ensure that the equipment and premises remained in good condition and working order.

People felt safe living at The Croft. The service had safeguarding procedures in place, which staff had received training in. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of what constituted abuse and knew how to report any concerns.

People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff on duty, in order to meet their needs and facilitate their chosen activities. Staffing numbers had been reassessed and increased since the last inspection, in order to fully meet people’s needs. Staff received effective supervision as well as having staff meetings, although supervision was not in line with timescales within the provider’s supervision policy. Staff received training relevant to their role, which was periodically updated. There were some gaps in staffs training, although the manager was aware of this, further courses had been booked and there was a plan to address the shortfall.

Risks associated with people’s health and welfare had been assessed and guidance was in place about how these risks could be minimised. There were systems in place to review any accidents and incidents and make relevant improvements, to reduce the risk of further occurrence.

People had opportunities for a range leisure activities that they liked. Staff were familiar with people’s likes and dislikes and used different communication methods with people, to enable people to make their own choices.

People said the food was “nice”. They had a variety of meals and adequate food and drink. Where people were at risk of poor nutrition or hydration, professionals had been involved in assessments of their needs and advice and guidance had been implemented. Some people were involved in the planning and preparation of meals.

People were supported to make their own decisions. The manager and staff had received or were booked to attend training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), the manager was aware of the process, where people lacked the capacity to make their own decisions, to ensure these decisions would be taken in their best interests. The manager had contacted the local authorities DoLS office for further advice and guidance.

People and/or their relatives were involved in planning people’s care and support. Care plans were being further developed to include a step by step guide to people’s preferred routines, their wishes and preferences and skills and abilities. People had regular review meetings to discuss their support and aspirations. People’s health care needs were closely monitored; they had access to a variety of healthcare professionals and were supported to attend healthcare appointments to maintain good health.

People were relaxed in staffs company and staff listened and acted on what they said. People’s privacy was respected. People said they “like” all of the staff” or “love them”. Staff were kind and caring in their approach and knew people and their support needs well.

The service had systems in place to obtain people’s views, which included questionnaires and informal discussions. There were also systems in place to monitor and audit the quality of service provided. Senior managers carried out visits to the service and staff undertook various regular checks. People felt comfortable in complaining, but did not have any concerns.

Staff were aware of the ‘concept’ (vision and values) of the service. They worked as a team to support people with their independence and ensure they had equal opportunities as members of society.

We found two breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

24 June 2014

During a routine inspection

An adult social care inspector carried out this inspection. The focus of the inspection was to answer five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led? We also followed up on the area of records, which we found non-compliant at the previous inspection.

During this inspection we spoke with two people who used the service. Due to the communication needs of people only two people were able to talk to us about their experience of living at The Croft. We observed how people spent their time and their interactions with staff. We also spoke with the manager, three staff, the administrator and the new Chief Executive Officer of The Leo Trust during our inspection. We reviewed care plans and other records relating to the management of the home.

We later telephoned two relatives to get their feedback on the care and support provided.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.

Is the service safe?

People and relatives told us they felt the service was 'very' safe.

The service had systems in place to keep people safe and we saw that the majority of risks associated with people's care and support had been assessed. However the assessments did not always promote the rights of people or give staff clear guidance about how to support a person safely. We have told the provider to take action about these concerns.

We could not assure ourselves that there was an effective system to manage accident and incidents and learn from them, so they were less likely to happen again, as there were no records available for inspection. There was also a lack of records relating to some equipment checks that had taken place to protect people and other checks to ensure people remained safe were not in place. We have told the provider to take action about these concerns.

People were not safeguarded by sufficient numbers of staff on duty to help ensure all their care and support needs were fully met. We have told the provider to take action about these concerns.

Staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DOLS). There were no Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisations in place, and no applications had been made.

Is the service effective?

People's needs were not always assessed by the service prior to moving in. However there was a thorough transition period for people including visits to the service.

People told us that they were 'happy' with the care they received; they liked living here because it was 'quiet' and felt their needs were met. Relatives said they were 'very' satisfied with the care and support people received. One relative said, Staff are always interacting with X (family member) and it is very good support'. Another relative said, 'They (people who lived at the service) all seem very very happy'. It was clear from what we saw and from speaking with staff that they understood people's care and support needs and that they knew them well.

Care plans were in place for each person; however there was a lack of information in relation to people's wishes and preferences and their communication, mental capacity and personal care needs, in order that care and support could be delivered in a safe and consistent way. We have told the provider to take action about these concerns.

People had access to health care professionals to help make sure their health care needs were met.

Relatives felt the food was 'good' and people had an adequate, varied and wholesome diet. We found that people had adequate food and drink although not everyone was always provided with sufficient choice to enable a varied diet. We have told the provider to take action about these concerns.

Staff felt supported 'now' although we found they had not had opportunities for individual meetings and appraisals to ensure that they were properly supported to provide care to people. We have told the provider to take action about these concerns. Staff had received training relevant to their role and in order to meet the needs of the people living at the service.

Is the service caring?

People told us 'all the staff are nice'. Relatives spoke very positively about the staff and felt that their family member's privacy and dignity was always maintained. They said staff were 'always' very respectful.

During the inspection we saw that staff adopted a kind and caring approach when supporting people. Staff were patient during lunchtime when supporting a person to eat and drink. We saw good interactions between staff and people who lived at The Croft.

People were treated with dignity and had their privacy respected. Staff demonstrated a kind and caring approach when discussing people that used the service during the inspection.

People's communication skills were not detailed sufficiently in their care plans; however staff demonstrated that they were able to understand people when communicating with them.

Is the service responsive?

We saw and heard during the inspection that some people were able to make their views known about what they wanted in relation to their day to day care and support. We saw that staff respected these wishes.

Staff told us that previously quality assurance surveys had been undertaken and would be again shortly. Relatives told us they felt the 'door was always open to senior management'. However there was a lack of evidence of opportunities for people to offer views and feedback, such as review meetings and one to one time. We have told the provider to take action about these concerns.

Relatives were very happy with the activities that people received. However we found that people's opportunities to undertake activities were sometimes limited due to, staffing numbers and lack of access to suitable vehicle. Staff told us two people went out regularly to appropriate activities and attractions, but records did not confirm this. We saw that people were able to spend time quietly if they wished within the service. We have told the provider to take action about these concerns.

Is the service well-led?

Relatives felt the service was well-led and they told us they had informal opportunities to feedback their views on the service provided. They felt that communication and accessibility of the new manager was good.

People did not benefit from a service where there were systems in place to monitor and learn from accidents and incidents, so that risks to people of future occurrences were minimised. We have told the provider to take action about these concerns.

There was a lack of regular audits and checks within the service to ensure risk and shortfalls were identified and managed in order to keep people safe. We have told the provider to take action about these concerns.

Staff had not always felt supported, but did feel supported by the new manager. They felt the manager had an open and supportive approach that created a culture where staff now felt comfortable in taking any concerns forward. There were systems in place to monitor that staff had the necessary training and skills to meet the needs of people who used the service.

11 December 2013

During a routine inspection

We observed that people felt safe and that there were enough staff to be able to meet their needs. Relatives told us they were very happy with the service and felt included in all and any decisions about care or welfare choices.

We saw that staff were able to demonstrate knowledge of safe guarding concerns, and that there was good written information and training to ensure appropriate actions in the event of any concerns.

We saw that people had their care and welfare needs met. That they participated in the activities they enjoyed and that their care was reviewed frequently. We saw that there were enough staff on duty to meet the increasing needs of people using the service and support systems both internal and external to encourage staff to work safely.

There were effective systems in place to monitor and review service delivery through surveys and regular audit.