The Croft

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

This is the first assessment for this service since a change of provider in October 2025. This key question has been rated good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.
 

This service scored 65 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

People and their relatives described staff as “Helpful and kind.”

We observed all staff greeting people and ask after their wellbeing throughout the days we were at The Croft. Staff routinely knocked on people’s doors before entering bedrooms. People felt safe and at ease with the care staff, Comments from relatives included, "I was watching them and they say hiya to residents as they go past" and “They treat her lovely and talk them around in a nice way."

We observed staff communicated well with people in a way they could understand. Staff routinely knelt when talking to people who were seated.
 

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

People and their relatives told us they felt the staff supported them to be themselves. Relatives told us they had noted a change since a reduction of agency staff. They felt people were supported by staff who knew them. We received positive feedback from relatives about how staff had supported people. Comments included, “The male carer stayed and we together moved their bed around until [Person] was happy, this chap didn’t seem to mind at all” and “One carer was worried about [Person] eating and got something different for [Person]. They spent time asking me about their likes and dislikes.” Another person’s relative told us, “[Person] can be stubborn in the mornings, so I said to staff if [Person] is still in their pj’s wait until they are amenable, do what is right for them.”

The manager was able to provide us with examples of how they have promoted people’s uniqueness and skills. One person had been supported to take a supportive role at The Croft. The manager shared the job description they had written for the person. It was clear the person was proud of their role.
 

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

We received mixed feedback from people and relatives about people’s choice and control. People told us they had some choice and control over what they did at The Croft. Comments included, "I wake up when I want to, and go to bed when I want", "I watch tv in my room" and, "I have all my meals in the dining room." However, people also told us there was little choice about what activities to take part in, as there was little “going on” at the home. One person told us, "There is nobody to organise things." A relative told us, "There is nothing to stimulate [Person]."

There was a lack of organised activities, however, people also told us they were able to maintain access to personal interests such as reading, painting, gardening and socialising. Comments included, “I go for a walk with the walker in the garden", "I paint and buy the paints" and "Got my books, and get a daily paper."The provider told us they had recognised this as an area for improvement, with recruitment in process to fill the gap in activities role.

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

We received mixed feedback from people and relatives about how responsive staff were, to meet people’s needs. We observed some delays in people receiving timely support. For instance, 1 person was calling for help for 19 minutes. When we spoke with another person they told us, "They [Staff] would not have come to that person unless you [inspector] said something."

Comments from people and their relatives who shared concerns about staff response times included, “When [Person] has rung for the toilet the wait could be 45 minutes”, “I rang the buzzer in the afternoon for an hour" and "It takes a fair while when I ring it."

However other people and relatives gave us positive feedback. Comments included, "I moved the sensor mat and staff were there in minutes, that is impressive" and “I have the bell and they [staff] come quickly.”

Relatives told us they were concerned people’s personal care was not always being supported in a timely manner. Comments included, “[Person] has to fight to have a shower" and, "[Person] has soiled herself [before staff arrived]."

Relatives frequently reported a lack of updates regarding health, incidents and care changes. Relatives told us, "They [staff] tell me nothing” and, "Not getting updates."

People and relatives felt emotional and social needs were not being met consistently. Comments from relatives included, “[Person] needs some sociability and purpose each day" and, "They have nothing to do."

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

The provider had systems in place to support staff. Staff told us they felt supported. One member of staff told us, “I feel valued and listened to.”