Archived: Croft House Care Home

Croft House is a short break service for adults who have learning disabilities, autistic spectrum disorders, physical disabilities and/or complex needs. There were five people using the service when we visited. Care is provided to approximately 70 people each year.

The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Some of the people who used the service during our visit had complex needs which limited their communication. This meant they could not always tell us their views of the service, so we asked their relatives for their views.

All the relatives we spoke with said they thought Croft House was safe. One relative said, “Oh yes it’s safe and [family member] is extremely happy there." Another relative told us, “I’ve got no worries and am very happy. The staff are fantastic.”

Staff had completed training in how to protect people from harm and abuse and understood the different forms and potential signs of abuse. Staff told us they had confidence in the management team to deal with safeguarding issues promptly and effectively. Records showed safeguarding concerns were recorded and dealt with appropriately and promptly.

A thorough recruitment and selection process was in place which ensured staff had the right skills and experience to support people who used the service. Identity and background checks had been completed which included references from previous employers and a disclosure and barring service (DBS) check. DBS checks help employers make safer recruitment decisions by preventing unsuitable people from working with vulnerable people.

Risks to people's health and safety were recorded in care files. These included risk assessments about people’s individual care needs such as using specialist equipment, pressure damage and nutrition. Other required checks such as gas safety were up to date.

There was a pleasant and homely atmosphere at the service. The accommodation was comfortable, clean and spacious. All relatives we spoke with said they were happy with the premises. One relative said, “It’s very homely.”

The arrangements for managing people’s medicines were safe. Medicines were stored securely and there were clear policies in place for supporting people with their medicines. Medicine records were up to date with no gaps or inaccuracies.

Staff received relevant training to support people in the right way. Staff received regular supervisions and appraisals, and told us they felt supported.

People were supported to maintain a balanced diet and to have enough to eat and drink. The chef offered a daily menu which was based on people’s preferences. A daily menu board was on display in the dining room in written and pictorial format.

People who could communicate their views verbally told us they liked staying at Croft House and that staff treated them well. One person who used the service told us, “It’s brilliant here. All the staff are friendly. I would give this place a five star rating.”

People who used the service were comfortable with staff and there was a welcoming atmosphere. Staff spoke to people kindly and calmly and explained what they were doing before providing care and support. Staff supported people to do the things they enjoyed and also encouraged independence with daily living. Staff described people who used the service as ‘guests’ and talked about people who used the service with affection and respect.

Staff had a clear understanding of people and how they liked to be supported. People’s independence was encouraged without unnecessary risks to their safety. Staff were responsive to people’s needs and acted promptly and appropriately when needs changed. Support plans were well written and specific to people’s individual needs. Records were up to date and reviewed regularly.

Relatives and staff felt the service was well managed. One relative told us, “[Registered manager] is always ready to put things right.” Another relative said, “[Registered manager] is extremely co-operative.”

There was an effective quality assurance system in place to monitor key areas such as safeguarding concerns, accidents, incidents and staffing issues. The service had an improvement plan which set out actions to be taken to improve and develop the service further. Feedback from people who used the service and their families was sought regularly and acted upon.

During our inspection we spoke to four care staff, the registered manager and the deputy manager. We met three of the people staying at Croft House and spoke to two of them about their experience there. People said things like 'I like it here', and 'Staff are nice'.

We observed staff interacting with people in a friendly manner and treating them respectfully. People moved freely around the home and asked for help and support when they needed it. One of the people staying at Croft House showed us around the building. They were particularly proud of the new facilities which included a fully equipped sensory room, a specialist bath with hoist and accessible chair, a computer and a large garden with patio area. The provider might find it useful to note that the entire garden was not accessible to wheelchair users.

We saw that care plans were detailed and up to date, however not all had been signed by people or a representative. The majority of the people staying at Croft House were able to consent to being there and to the care they received there. However, their involvement in the care planning was not always recorded. There were no records about the decision making process held in the home for those that did not have the capacity to consent.

There were processes in place to ensure that medicines were received, stored and administered safely. Only trained and competent staff attended to this.

People using the service received personalised care and support that meets their needs. Risks relating to the provision of care and support were identified and managed, taking into account safety and people's right to make choices.

The service had training and support systems in place to ensure that people who use the service were protected from abuse, or the risk of abuse.

People using the service were supported by sufficient numbers of staff, who received regular supervision and ongoing training to ensure they had the knowledge and skills to meet people's needs.

Systems were in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service that people received and to make improvements where necessary.