You are here

Archived: Croftside Requires improvement

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 12 November 2015

This unannounced inspection took place on 1 September 2015. We last inspected Croftside in December 2013. At that inspection we found the service was meeting all the six regulations that we assessed.

Croftside is a residential home located in the village of Milnthorpe and is close to all the local amenities and services. The home has three units, the one on the ground floor provides care and support for people living with dementia. The home provides accommodation on two floors for up to 34 people. The first floor is accessible by a passenger lift and all the bedrooms are for single occupancy. At the time of our visit there were 33 people living in the home.

The service had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

We found at this inspection that there was a breach of Regulation 18 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. This was because there were not sufficient numbers of support staff at night time to meet the assessed needs of people living in the home and in emergency situations.

There was a breach of Regulation 13 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008(Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. This was because the registered provider had not made sure that suspected or alleged abuse had been acted upon quickly and in line with local safeguarding arrangements to keep people safe.

There was a breach of Regulation 9 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. This was because the assessments of people’s care, treatment and support needs were not always in place, planned in detail and reviewed to support person centred care and did not always show how some risks were to be managed.

The Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009 require that the registered provider notifies the Commission without delay of allegations of abuse and accidents or incidents that had involved injury to people who used this service. This is so that CQC can monitor services responses to help make sure appropriate action is taken and also to carry out our regulatory responsibilities. The sample of people’s records that we looked at showed examples of incidents and accidents that had occurred that should have been reported to CQC.Our systems showed that we had not received these notifications. The failure to notify us of matters of concern as outlined in the registration regulations is a breach of the provider's condition of registration and this matter is being dealt with outside of the inspection process.

You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

We spoke with people who lived at Croftside and they made positive comments about their home and told us they felt it was a safe place to live. They told us that staff were “kind” and “helpful” and helped them to do things for themselves. People living there told us that care staff respected their privacy and treated them with respect. We saw that the staff on duty approached people in a friendly and respectful way and everyone we spoke with told us that they felt safe living at the home.

We spent time with people on all the units. We saw that the staff offered people assistance and took the time to speak with people and take up the opportunities they had to interact with them and offer reassurance if needed.

They service had safe systems for the recruitment of staff to make sure the staff taken on were suited to working there. On the day of the visit there were sufficient care staff available to support the people living there. We saw that care staff had received induction training and ongoing training and development and had supervision once employed.

Medicines were being safely administered and stored and we saw that accurate records were kept of medicines received and disposed of so they could be accounted for.

People knew how they could complain about the service they received and information on this was displayed in the home. People we spoke with were confident that action would be taken in response to any concerns they raised.

We have made a recommendation about obtaining information on best practice in relation to providing evidence of who holds PoA for individuals and ensuring the annual review of DNACPR forms and decisions.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 12 November 2015

The service was not safe.

The registered manager had not always followed local guidelines to refer possible abuse to the appropriate safeguarding agencies.

There were not sufficient numbers of care staff at all times to meet the assessed needs of people living in the home and in emergency situations.

Medicines were being handled safely and people received their medicines correctly.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 12 November 2015

The service was not effective.

There was not evidence of best practice in relation to providing evidence of who holds PoA for individuals and ensuring the annual review of DNACPR forms and decisions.

The requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards had been followed to ensure legal authority had been obtained to restrict a person’s liberty where needed.

We could see that training had been provided for staff relevant to their roles to help them understand and support people living in the home.

Caring

Good

Updated 12 November 2015

The service was caring.

People told us that they were being well cared for and we saw that the staff were respectful and friendly in their approaches.

Staff demonstrated good knowledge about the people they were supporting, for example information on their backgrounds and preferred activities.

We saw that staff maintained people’s personal dignity when assisting them. Staff also offered explanation and reassurance about what they were doing

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 12 November 2015

The service was not responsive.

Staff did not always have accurate information to refer to in care plans and some people did not have appropriate risk assessments in place to inform their care planning and the support they needed from staff.

There was a system in place to receive and handle complaints or concerns raised.

Support was provided so people could follow their own interests and faiths and to maintain relationships with friends and relatives and to have local community contact.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 12 November 2015

The service was not well led.

Some notifications of accidents and incidents required by the regulations that should have been submitted to the Care Quality Commission (CQC) had not been notified.

Checks of care plans and reviews used to assess the quality of care planning were not ensuring that people’s care plans always had the required information.

People who lived in the home and their visitors were given some opportunities to give their views of the service.