Croft House Care Home Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question outstanding. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 67 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

The provider did not always make sure people’s needs were fully assessed in line with best practice. Care plans were in place, they were person centred and regularly updated, however, some plans contained inaccuracies, such as referring to a relative by different names. People told us they were not involved in writing their care plans, and relatives said involvement had stopped for a period, though the new registered manager planned to reinstate reviews. Risk assessments, including falls and nutrition, were completed, but actions were not always recorded promptly when risks changed, such as unexplained weight loss. One relative said, “We used to be involved in care planning, but that stopped for a while.”

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

The provider made sure people’s care and treatment was generally effective. The lunchtime experience was positive, with appetising meals and staff supporting people with dignity. Kitchen staff understood nutritional needs and offered varied menus, including vegetarian options.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Staff worked well together and with external professionals to support people’s care. We observed good communication during handovers and positive teamwork throughout the inspection. Visiting professionals spoke positively about the new registered manager’s proactive approach. Relatives confirmed they were beginning to be invited to meetings for families which created opportunities for feedback.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People were supported to access a range of health care professionals and staff monitored people’s health and well-being daily. There were regular visits from health care professionals including GPs and district nurses.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

The provider had systems to monitor quality and outcomes. These identified good practice and areas for improvement. Falls analysis was detailed, and referrals to the falls team were actioned when needed. Staff and relatives spoke positively about the new registered manager’s commitment to improvement.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment.

Consent was not always obtained and recorded in line with best practice. People who lacked capacity had mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions in place which were detailed, however, not all decisions had been assessed. In some cases, care plans indicated staff consented on behalf of people, even when relatives with lasting power of attorney were involved, which was inappropriate. Leaders acknowledged these gaps and are working to improve consent recording.