Croft House Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

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 had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

Reporting processes were in place for accidents and incidents, and the provider completed statutory notifications in line with their legal requirements and regulation. The provider carried out regular supervision, appraisals and team meetings which gave staff opportunities to reflect on practice and discuss learning. We saw evidence of actions the provider had taken with regards to lessons learned. For example, the provider developed a training pack for falls management as an additional training resource in response to a fall’s incident. The registered manager told us it was important to them they do all that they can to share with the team what has been learnt, and what they can do moving forward.

Staff were aware of processes to report accidents and incidents.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

Staff worked in partnership with other professionals such as GPs, dietitians and speech and language therapists (SALT) to support people to access healthcare when they needed it.The provider had a GP or community matron round once a week and a weekly multi-disciplinary meeting was in place.

The provider had systems and processes in place for pre assessment of peoples’ needs prior to their admission to Croft House Care Home. One staff member told us, “We receive good training to meet people’s needs and management within the home are very supportive and will communicate with staff before we accept new residents to make sure, we are equipped in every way to give the best possible care.”

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

The provider had safeguarding and whistleblowing policies in place that were readily accessible to staff. The provider submitted statutory notifications and raised safeguarding concerns with the Local Authority. Records showed safeguarding incidents were investigated and lessons learned were shared with the team.

People and their relatives told us they felt safe and they had no concerns about the support provided. One person told us, “I do feel very safe here.” Another person told us, “I do like it here, mainly because the staff are so kind and caring to me.”

Staff had received training in how to safeguard people from abuse and understood how to report concerns. We saw evidence of safeguarding being discussed at team meetings.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

We reviewed care plans and risk assessments during our assessment of Croft House Care Home. Risk assessments were detailed and covered a wide range of needssuch as choking, falls and diabetes management. Regular reviews were being carried out, and we saw evidence of people and their relative’s involvement in their reviews. One relative told us, “I have seen my [relatives] care plan several times and I am always updated if anything changes when I am in here.” One comment we received from a relative was that they had not seen their relatives care plan for a while, however the home was very good at keeping them updated, “I visit here a lot so can always speak to the manager, or nurse, and they will always update me. They also will telephone me if any concerns arise.”

Staff told us they felt they had sufficient information to support people safely and were able to seek advice or guidance when required. Comments included, “Care staff can always request clarification or support from registered staff if they are unsure about a resident's needs or if they feel resident's needs have changed.”

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

The home was bright, welcoming and homely. We did not identify any concerns around the environment. The provider made sure that the appropriate health and safety checks were being carried out such as fire safety checks. Cleaning products or equipment that may be a risk to people’s safety were stored appropriately. Equipment was being serviced at regular intervals. Appropriate arrangements were in place to manage emergencies.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

Staff had received the appropriate training and had regular supervisions. Staff spoke positively about the training they received at Croft House Care Home. One staff member told us, “I have received the most extensive mandatory and non-mandatory training that I have ever seen.” Another staff member told us the induction they received was good but would prefer less online training and more face to face training.

We observed enough staff during our onsite inspection at Croft House Care Home; however, we did receive mixed feedback regarding staffing levels. Some staff felt there was not always enough staff to support people during the day and there appeared to be a divide between day and night staff. Feedback from people and their relatives was mostly positive around staffing levels, however we did receive comments around wanting more staff at the weekend. Comments included, “I feel maybe they need more staff of the weekend. Like when anyone calls at the weekend it can take a while for the door to be answered, so people who visit are waiting to get in.”

The provider had recruitment procedures in place to ensure the required checks were carried out prior to staff commencing their employment. This included enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks for adults. DBS checks provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the police national computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

The home was clean and tidy with no malodours. The home was currently undergoing some renovations to the lounge area, and the provider had ensured this had minimal impact on people and staff and continued to maintain a clean and safe environment. The home was decorated nicely and was bright and airy and had a very homely feel to it.

The service had a policy and procedures in place for infection prevention and control, and regular audits were completed by staff.

Staff had received the appropriate infection prevention and control (IPC) training, and staff were observed practicing good IPC during our onsite visit, including wearing appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE).

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

People received their prescribed medicines in accordance with their needs. Medicines were stored appropriately and the clinical room was clean, tidy and daily temperature recordings were being completed. We reviewed the PRN – ‘as required’ protocols and found these to contain appropriate information and were being reviewed regularly. Audits were in place and being completed.

Staff had received the appropriate training to support people with their medicines. We observed a staff member following safe administration of medicines being given at lunch time.