You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 8 November 2019

About the service

Croft Cottage is run by the Epilepsy Society. It is a residential care home providing accommodation and personal care to seven people. At the time of the inspection seven people were living there.

Croft Cottage accommodates seven people in one adapted building. Each person has an en-suite shower and share the communal facilities such as the kitchen, lounge/diner, laundry room and have access to a bathroom. They have an enclosed accessible rear garden.

Services for people with learning disabilities and or autism are supported

The service applied the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These ensure that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice and independence.

The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People felt safe and were happy with their care. We observed they had positive relationships with staff which promoted their well-being. Relatives were happy with their family members care. They felt confident they received safe care. Relatives described the staff as exemplary, caring, kind with one relative commenting that “staff treated their family member as family”.

People were provided with information on how to raise concerns. A relative raised a number of issues with us about their experience of their family member’s care which they indicated they had raised with the provider. This was not recorded as a formal complaint. We have made a recommendation for the provider to work in line with best practice and policy in relation to the handling of concerns and complaint. We have referred the concerns raised by the relative to the provider to treat as a formal complaint.

Risks to people were identified and managed, which included infection control risks. Systems were in place to safeguard them. Staff were suitably recruited, and people were supported by a consistent staff team who had a good knowledge of their needs to promote people’s safety. Whilst the agreed staffing levels were maintained the change in people’s needs was having an impact on the availability of staff to support people. The service had responded to the changes in people’s needs and a request for a review of individuals was underway with the funding authority.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. The service was clean, homely and maintained. People’s health and nutritional needs were identified and met. Staff were suitably inducted, trained and supported to enable them to support people effectively.

People’s privacy, dignity, choices and independence was promoted. They were supported by a staff team who were kind, caring, encouraging and supportive.

Person centred care plans were in place which identified people’s needs including their communication needs. End of life wishes were being explored. Staff were aware of people’s needs and responsive to them. People had access to a programme of activities.

The service was audited and monitored to promote safe practices. Peer audits had commenced. Systems were in place to enable people, staff and relatives to give feedback on the service. Records were suitably maintained. People and staff were happy with the way the service was managed. They told us the management team were accessible, approachable, flexible and responsive. Systems were in place to promote good communication and staff felt they worked well together as a team. Some relativ

Inspection areas



Updated 8 November 2019

The service was safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.



Updated 8 November 2019

The service was effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.



Updated 8 November 2019

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.



Updated 8 November 2019

The service was responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.



Updated 8 November 2019

The service was well-led.

Details are in our well-Led findings below