You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 4 April 2018

The inspection was carried out on 14 February 2018, and was an unannounced inspection.

The service Littlecroft is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The service was not registered to provide nursing care. The service provides accommodation for up to nine people who have learning disabilities. There were five people living at the service at the time of the inspection. The service Littlecroft is a residential care home located in New Romney and consists of two neighbouring chalet bungalows in a residential area.

At the last Care Quality Commission (CQC) inspection on 05 and 06 October 2016, the service was rated ‘Good’ in the Caring and Responsive domains: ‘Requires improvement’ in Safe, Effective and Well Led domains. The overall judgement rating for the service was ‘Requires Improvement’ and there were five breaches of regulation. There were areas that required improvement. These included, personal emergency evacuation plans that were not in place for people to inform staff about the support they would need to leave the service in the event of an emergency; fire drills had not been completed as required; maximum hot water temperatures, set by the Health and Safety Executive were marginally exceeded. Although checks had identified this, action had not been taken to rectify it; local authority safeguarding protocols had not always been followed; some 'as and when needed' medicines were administered, staff had not always recorded the quantity given; applications to meet the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards had not been made as needed., and quality monitoring systems were in place, but were not effective enough to enable the service to highlight the issues raised at the last inspection.

At this inspection, we found that improvements have been made.

Systems were in place to enable the provider to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service and these were being followed.

Effective procedures were in place to keep people safe from abuse and mistreatment.

The registered manager had applied the principles of MCA 2005 within the service in a person centred manner which involved people in decisions about meeting their needs effectively.

Medicines were managed safely and people received them as prescribed, including as and when required medicines.

Each care plan now contained information of an individual Personal Emergency Evacuation Plan (PEEP). The fire safety procedures had been reviewed and were regularly monitored in line with the provider’s policy. A water management plan was in place to reduce the risks

This service had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who is 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. The registered manager was also responsible for looking after other services owned by the same provider. Although always in contact with staff, when the registered manager was not present at the Littlecroft sites, team leaders oversaw the running of the service.

Most people were able to indicate to us they liked living in the services, they appeared happy, relaxed and contented in a comfortable living environment, interacting readily with staff and without hesitation.

There were enough staff to keep people safe. The registered manager continued to have appropriate arrangements in place to ensure there were always enough staff on shift.

Staff knew what their responsibilities were in relation to keeping people safe from the risk of abuse. Staff recognised the signs of abuse and what to look out for

Inspection areas



Updated 4 April 2018

The service was safe.

There were enough staff to safely support people, and there was guidance in place and followed by staff to ensure people�s safety.

Potential risks to people�s health and welfare were acted on.

Checks were in place so only suitable staff were employed.

People were supported by staff who had received training and understood their responsibilities in relation to safeguarding.

People's medicines were administered by trained competent staff.



Updated 4 April 2018

The service was effective.

Referrals had been made to a supervisory body to meet the requirements of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

Staff received appropriate instruction and training when they first started work; on-going training ensured staff had the skills and knowledge to support the people they cared for.

Staff were provided with opportunities to meet the managers to discuss their work performance, training and development.

People's health was monitored and staff ensured people had access to external healthcare professionals when they needed it.

People were supported to eat and drink when needed and they enjoyed the variety of food provided.



Updated 4 April 2018

The service was caring.

Staff took the time needed to communicate with people and included people in conversations. Staff spoke with people in a caring, dignified and compassionate way.

Staff knew people well and knew how they preferred to be supported.

People's privacy and dignity was maintained and respected.

Staff supported people to maintain contact with their family where possible.



Updated 4 April 2018

The service was responsive.

People's care and support was planned in line with their individual care and support needs.

Staff had a good understanding of people's needs and preferences. People were supported to take part in activities that they chose.

There was a complaints system and people knew how to complain. Views from people and their relatives were taken into account and acted on.



Updated 4 April 2018

The service was well led.

Quality assurance processes were effective to ensure required actions were identified and progressed.

Staff felt supported and there was an open culture in the home which encouraged staff and people to share their views.

Statutory notifications required by CQC were submitted when needed.

Staff were aware of their responsibilities to share any concerns about the service.