Croft House Care Home

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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 75 (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 made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. People and relatives were involved in reviews of their care and support needs. One relative told us, “I visit every day more less and they either phone me and update me on [relatives] wellbeing or tell me when I come in.” Staff confirmed they received handovers between shifts and were kept up to date of any changes to people’s needs. Comments included, “There are also handovers at the beginning and end of each shift where all changes are highlighted and shared.”

The provider held a ‘Take 10’ meeting every morning with key staff, to discuss any changes, concerns, appointments and activities planned for the day.

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.

Where appropriate people had their needs assessed by speech and language therapists (SALT) and received meals in line with recommendations made by these professionals and staff had received specialist training around dysphasia (risk of choking). We saw evidence of involvement from external healthcare professionals regarding various health needs such as district nurses and GPs. People’s care plans were person-centred and detailed what was important to people.

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.

The provider worked closely with external health and social care professionals such as GP’s, district nurses, chiropodist and people had access to holistic services such as a hairdresser and we saw evidence of this within people’s care plans. Staff had access to appropriate information to help support people’s needs and wellbeing.

We saw evidence of staff attending meetings and sharing relevant information through handovers. One staff member told us, “We are always updated in meetings and updates are all on shift handovers.”

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.

We saw evidence of people’s dietary requirements being met for example, with meals suitable for people with diabetes.We observed meals were nutritious and a good portion size. People were being encouraged to choose their own food options and people were being supported with healthy options.

During our onsite inspection, we saw people enjoying the outdoor space and staff encouraging people to participate in activities.

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.

Care plan audits were being carried out regularly to help monitor progress and identify any changes to people’s needs. Monitoring tools were used to help identify any changes to people’s needs and wellbeing. For example, a MUST (Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool) was used monthly when service user’s weights were recorded, which helped to identify if the person needs a referral to an external healthcare professional such as a dietician or the GP.

Any updates to people’s needs were shared accordingly with staff via handovers and the electronic care planning system.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

We observed people being offered choices and staff sought consent from people prior to supporting people. Staff spoke positively about ensuring people were at the centre of their care and encouraged to make their own decisions. One staff member told us, “Our residents are always encouraged to be involved in their own care and their opinions and choices are respected.”

The provider had processes in place for ensuring that Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard [DoLS] had been applied for appropriately and were monitored and reviewed. Staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 [MCA] and DoLS.