Archived: The Croft

Updated 7 December 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 31 October and 1 November was unannounced.

One inspector carried out the inspection.

Before visiting the service, we looked at previous inspection reports and information sent to the Care Quality Commission (CQC) through notifications. Notifications are information we receive when a significant event happens, like a death or a serious injury.

We also looked at information sent to us by the manager through the Provider Information Return (PIR). The PIR contains information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We used this information to plan our inspection.

We looked at a variety of different sources of information relating to people, such as; care and support plans, activity plans and risk assessments. In addition, we looked at surveys, staff rotas, training records, recruitment files, medicine administration records, complaints and accident logs. We asked the deputy manager to send us some documentation via email after the inspection. These were received on the days following the inspection.

On the first day of the inspection, we spoke with one person and observed interaction between staff and people. We spoke with three members of staff, the quality manager and the health and safety manager. On the second day of the inspection we spoke with the deputy manager and one members of staff. The manager was not available on the days of inspection.

Updated 7 December 2018

The inspection was carried out on 31 October and 1 November. It was unannounced.

The Croft is a residential care home that provides accommodation and personal care for up to four people. It specifically provides a service for older people who have a learning disability and some who are living with dementia. At the time of inspection, there were three people living at the Croft.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. The service ethos is to enable people with learning disabilities and autism to live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

The Croft had not had a registered manager since May 2017. We asked the deputy and quality manager about this and they said that there had been a manager in place but they had resigned before registering with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). The provider is currently recruiting for a replacement who will become the registered manager.

The atmosphere at the Croft was relaxed and friendly. People and staff interacted with kindness and respect. There was an inclusive, supportive and homely culture that reflected the provider’s visions and values. People living at the Croft were supported to live full and enriching lives as much as possible. Staff knew people well and had the appropriate knowledge and training to keep people safe. Positive risk taking was encouraged to ensure people could maintain skills and experience new things.

There continued to be enough staff to support people and staff continued to have the training and support to provide people with high quality care that responded and adapted to people's changing needs. Staff had a good working relationship with associated professionals, so people received care and support from professionals as and when they required it. Relatives told us that they were kept informed of changes in people's physical and emotional health.

Medicines continued to be managed safely. Daily checks ensured that if there were any shortfalls, these were quickly identified and resolved. The clean and well-maintained premises continued to meet the needs of people and staff knew how to protect people against the spread of infection.

Care continued to be steered by developments in best practice. The provider and manager attended a variety of forums and developments were discussed in team meetings and through training sessions. Support plans were person centred and thorough and were written in a way that was meaningful to people. Peoples communication needs were assessed and staff used different methods to enable people to communicate their views and choices in their own way, through discussions, reviews and resident’s meetings.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice. Staff worked with people and their relatives to ensure that support plans and support reflected their care needs. People discussed what they would like to happen if they were to pass away, and their wishes were respected.

The manager sought feedback from people using the service, staff, relatives and health professionals and an accessible complaints procedure was available. Complaints, compliments, accidents and incidents were recorded, and these were collected and analysed by both the manager and the provider to identify patterns and if lessons could be learnt. Regular checks and audits were carried out to ensure issues were identified and resolved.

People's information was kept securely in the office and staff respected people's privacy, dignity and confidentiality. The previous CQC rating of 'Good' was displayed on the provider's website and in the hallway for people to see.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.