Crofton Springs

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated Good.

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 68 (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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Some language used in care plans was not person-centred and people’s preferences, likes, dislikes and personal histories were inconsistently recorded. However, people and relatives were happy with the care received and told us they had been involved in decisions about their care. They said, “Staff discuss my needs with me, and they’ve discussed my care plan with my family too,” and “[Relative] is quite stable so not many changes have been needed to their care plan, but staff talk to us regularly.”

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

People received support which was coordinated and delivered in a consistent way. Staff shared information verbally throughout the shift, which helped maintain continuity even when written and electronic documents had not yet been updated. People told us the service ran smoothly and relatives said they were kept informed when concerns arose or when health advice was needed.

Staff worked well with external professionals and sought guidance when people’s needs changed. Relatives gave examples of staff contacting GP or community teams promptly, which helped ensure the right support was put in place without delay. Staff were familiar with the advice provided and used this to adjust how they supported people.

A stable staff team meant people were supported by staff who knew them well and understood their usual routines and preferences. This familiarity helped staff recognise changes early and respond in a coordinated way. For example, we observed staff correctly identify and escalate a concern when a person became unwell after a fall. The staff were able to get timely support for the person which meant they did not experience further discomfort.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Care plans guided staff on how to communicate effectively with people when they were happy, sad or distressed. There was a staff board which showed how many staff were working in the day and overnight. There were signs which identified the different rooms, such as ‘garden room’, ‘cinema’ and ‘dining room’. We saw some signs had been put up stating certain toilets were out of order.

Staff understood the importance and principles of data protection and were aware of not disclosing confidential information about people. The management team and staff were aware of the Accessible Information Standard which a rule for health and social care services which says they have to communicate with people in a way they can understand.

The service did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

At the time of the inspection, there was no activity co-ordinator in post and although staff were delivering activities, due to the care plans being inconsistent with details about people’s preferences, this meant the provider could not ensure there were activities suitable for everyone, which reflected their unique histories and interests.

All complaints were recorded and investigated, and a response and apology provided. Outcomes of investigations were shared with staff so they could learn from the complaint. The complaints procedure was displayed where it was easily visible.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Although no concerns had been identified, there were processes in place the registered manager could consider if concerns arose. For example, the registered manager had a good working relationship with the local GP and District Nursing team who would respond quickly to any concerns raised about a person’s care, support or treatment needs. We saw evidence when concerns were escalated to the GP or nurses, these were actioned quickly.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

There was equal access to facilities, extra services and staff support to attend appointments. Although some services were meant to be charged separately, the registered manager told us, “It’s my personal decision to make sure no matter what, no matter how people are funded, or what they are funded for, what their background is, no one misses out.” We saw evidence everyone in the service had equal access and opportunities and people were not treated differently if they were privately paying for care or funded by the local authority.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Staff had a good understanding of people’s wishes and preferences as they approached the end of their life. The registered manager gave several examples of how people were being supported to make decisions about their future. However, care plans did not always reflect how people were encouraged to plan for the future. The provider was responsive to our feedback and told us they would update records accordingly. Relatives told us they were asked about end of life and future planning by the registered manager and deputy manager.