• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Crofters Close

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

81-83 Crofters Close, Droitwich, Worcestershire, WR9 9HT (01905) 773993

Provided and run by:
Worcestershire County Council

All Inspections

30 June 2016

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 30 June 2016 and was unannounced.

The provider of Crofters Close is registered to provide accommodation with personal care for up to six people with learning disabilities. At the time of this inspection five people lived at the home.

As part of its conditions of registration, this provider is required to have a registered manager. 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the home is run. There was no registered manager in place as they had left the providers employment two weeks prior to this inspection but there was a manager managing the home in the interim period pending recruitment.

People were supported by staff who knew how to recognise and report any concerns to promote people's safety. There were sufficient staff on duty to respond to people's individual needs at the times they needed support. People were helped to take their medicines by staff who knew how to manage these in line with safe principles of practice.

Staff were appropriately recruited to ensure they were suitable to work with people who lived at the home. They had received training and support to deliver a good quality of care to people and an active training programme was in place to address identified training needs.

Staff respected people's rights to make their own decisions and choices about their care and treatment. People's permission was sought by staff before they helped them with anything. Staff made sure people understood what was being said to them by using a range of communication methods. These included gestures, short phrases or words. When people did not have the capacity to make their own specific decisions these were made in their best interests by people who knew them well and were authorised to do this.

Staff met people's care and support needs in the least restrictive way. Where it was felt people received care and support to keep them safe and well which may be restricting their liberty the required applications had been made. These actions made sure people's liberty was not being unlawfully restricted.

Staff had been supported to assist people in the right way which included helping people to eat and drink enough to stay healthy and well. People had been assessed for any risks associated with eating and drinking and care plans had been created for those people who were identified as being at risk. People were supported to access health and social care services to maintain and promote their health and well-being.

Staff cared for people in a kind, warm and friendly way. Staff promoted what people could do and supported people with dignity when they needed assistance. People's right to private space and time to be alone and with their relatives was accepted and respected.

Staff delivered the care that had been planned to meet people’s needs and had a high degree of knowledge about their individual choices, decisions and preferences. Staff offered people the opportunity to do things for fun and interest. There were good arrangements in place for receiving and resolving complaints which took into account people's individual needs.

The views of people who lived at the home, relatives and staff were sought using different ways to develop the service and quality checks focused upon continuous improvement. The leadership promoted an open culture which put people at the heart of the service.

07/04/2014

During a routine inspection

Crofters Close is a local authority care home that provides accommodation and personal care and support for up to six people with learning disabilities. Five people lived at the home at the time of our inspection. At the time of our inspection there was a registered manager in post.

The people living at Crofters Close had lived together for a number of years. Everyone was comfortable and relaxed in each other's company. We spoke with three relatives and an advocate. They all confirmed that what mattered most to them was that the staff knew people well and therefore responded to people’s needs effectively which reduced risks to their wellbeing.

People who lived at Crofters Close were treated with kindness and compassion. Relatives and an advocate that we contacted by telephone all agreed that people were supported by caring staff who kept them informed about people’s care. One relative told us that they felt that their family member was safe and there was always someone at the home they could talk to if there was a problem.

People who lived at the home were safe and their needs were met by staff who knew them well. Every person had an individual plan of care, based on their learning disabilities and other social and health needs. When we spoke with staff they were able to tell us about the people they provided care and support to which included their support needs.

There were good systems in place that ensured risks to people were identified and met. Assessments of people’s needs and risks were written down in plans which included the triggers that might cause people’s behaviour to become challenging. Staff that knew about people’s identified risks and how to manage these effectively to ensure people’s safety was promoted.

Staff had a good understanding of the types of concerns that may have indicated abuse and their responsibilities to help protect and keep people at the home safe. They were clear about the steps they would take if they had any concerns and were confident that these concerns would be investigated or reported. One member of staff also told us that the training and support provided ensured that they were able to look after and meet the needs of people living at the home.

The registered manager acted in accordance with legal requirements where people may be unable to make their own decisions to consent to their care, support and treatment. Staff had an awareness of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. They understood their obligations with respect to people's rights and choices when people did not have the ability to make informed and appropriate decisions. For example, decisions were made by professionals and family members where appropriate so that people’s best interests and rights were upheld. The registered manager and staff also understood the principles of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and showed that people’s needs were met in the least restrictive way.

There were arrangements in place to assess and monitor the safety and quality of care. The views of people and families were used to improve the quality of services delivered. One example that illustrated this was that the registered manager had continued to work hard to improve people’s access to personalised activities. This was acknowledged by another professional who had witnessed the improvements. This demonstrated that the registered manager listened and acted upon other professionals views which showed that the care and support that people received was effective and well led by staff that cared.

11 December 2013

During a routine inspection

On the morning of our inspection all of the people who lived there were out ice skating. During the afternoon we observed the support and care provided for the people that lived there. Five of the people who lived there had no verbal communication and one person had limited verbal communication. We spoke with one person who lived there, one relative and one advocate. We spoke with four staff and the registered manager. We looked at two care records and three staff files.

We asked one person if they were happy and if staff were kind to them and the person said yes. We saw that staff were gentle and spoke kindly to people. We saw that staff had a kind and caring approach towards people they supported. We saw that people responded positively to the interactions from staff.

We spoke with one relative and one advocate who spoke positively about the care that people received. One relative said; 'I'm delighted with the care that X receives. We take X out for the day and X always seems glad when they go back to Crofters'

We looked at people's nutrition. We saw that people were offered choices of healthy nutritious meals that they appeared to enjoy.

Staff had been recruited in an appropriate way and checks had been undertaken that ensured they were suitable to care for vulnerable people.

We found that any comments and complaints people made had been responded to appropriately and the provider ensured that people were listened to.

28 February 2013

During a routine inspection

During this inspection we spoke with two relatives and with five staff. We were unable to speak with the people who used the service due to their level of complex health needs. We also looked at how staff cared for the people who used the service.

We saw that people appeared relaxed and comfortable and they were being cared for in a way that they preferred. One relative said they, "Couldn't ask for better care".

Medicines were being appropriately stored and administered and all medicine records were accurate.

Staff employed at the service had access to further training and told us that they felt supported by their peers and the registered manager.

The provider was able to monitor the quality of the service provided as regular audits and regular contact with families was maintained.

18 September 2012

During a routine inspection

We were not able to talk to all the people who live in Crofters Close as their condition prevents them from communicating verbally. We were able to look at how people were looked after by talking to the staff and observing the care given. People appeared comfortable and relaxed and were able to alert staff if needed. People were able to spend time in their favourite places within their home and were supported to undertake activities in and out of their home.