Crofton Lodge

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. This is the first inspection for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent .

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to the need to consent.

This service scored 62 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, well-being, and communication needs with them. Staff understood people’s individual needs and made sure assessments were up to date and recorded. Staff told us people’s views were sought by using their preferred communication methods across various platforms including, during daily support and in meetings with their keyworker, and as a whole household. We saw evidence of people’s views being recorded and included in daily notes.

The service 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. The manager told us how they used evidence based tools which supported staff to recognise if a person’s health was deteriorating. Staff ensured people had enough to eat and drink and where there was a concern in this area a person had a care plan in place with guidance from speech and language therapists (SALT) on how to support the person safely.

The service worked well across teams and services to support people. For example, staff worked with speech and language therapists, occupational therapists, district nurses and social workers. The manager shared with us an example of a person who administered their medicine to help them manage a long term health condition. The manager told us, if any concerns arose relating to this, they would contact the person’s GP. The service was supporting people in line with the ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ principles.

The service supported people to manage their health and well-being to maximise their independence, choice, and control. The manager told us, “We are ensuring people have home cooked meals and a balanced diet to enhance their health. We encourage people to exercise”. The service strived to support people to live healthier lives, the manager also told us people were supported at weekly house meetings to plan their menus for the week and to discuss what activities they would like to undertake the following week. We reviewed documents relating to these meetings and were assured of people’s involvement.

The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. Staff worked collaboratively to plan and deliver people’s care, reduce risks, and achieve best outcomes for people. A staff member told us, every person had a keyworker, who knew the person well and helped co-ordinate their care. There were also meetings held between people and their keyworkers and then keyworkers and managers to ensure key information was shared and acted on.

The service did not always tell people about their rights around consent or respect these when delivering care and treatment . We reviewed mental capacity assessments (MCAs) which were not completed in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. There was one MCA document in place for each person, which was ticked either yes or no as to whether a person had capacity relating to certain areas, for example, finances and medicines management. This meant the document was not decision specific. This document did not contain evidence of people being involved in the process, or their relatives or other professional’s.

Best Interest (BI) meetings were not held following the MCA assessment. This meant decisions relating to mental capacity were not being made in the persons best interests with involvement from other people who knew the person well. Deprivation of liberty safeguards (DoLS) were not in place for 2 people who had restrictions included in their care plans. These 2 people were under constant supervision and not free to leave the home without staff support. We spoke to the provider about this, they told us they would ensure MCAs were completed with people in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Following our inspection, the provider sent us evidence of an emergency application made to DoLS for the 2 people without these in place.