The Croft

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 assessment for this service since a change of provider in October 2025. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

The service was in breach of a legal regulation in relation to people’s consent and decisions made in their best interests.
 

This service scored 63 (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 did not always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People and relatives told us needs were assessed before they moved into The Croft. However, care plans did not routinely reflect people and their life history.

Relatives told us they had been involved in developing care plans and supported their family members wishes. However, 1 relative told us the care plan was not always followed, to ensure person centred care was delivered. The relative told us they found their family member struggling to eat and no staff supporting them. However, the person's care plan clearly stated they needed support. Other relatives told us care plans were followed. For instance, about preferences for care staff.

The provider 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.

People were supported to have clinical reviews by external healthcare professionals when needed. For instance, people were referred to district nurses, GPs and mental health teams for additional care and treatment where required.
 

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Systems were in place for staff to share important information about people with each other and from shift to shift.

Each shift was organised and had a shift leader in place. There was a clear management structure. We observed staff communicating well with each other.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People were encouraged by staff to improve their wellbeing. People were referred to external healthcare professionals when needed. In addition, staff sought support from virtual healthcare services (video appointments with healthcare professionals) to prevent unnecessary admission to hospital.

Staff told us they were aware of how best to support people. The Croft had a good working relationship with the local GP practice, and a GP visited the home each week.
 

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

People told us their quality of life and their experience of living at The Croft could be improved. We were provided with examples of when people had to wait for care and support. People and their relatives told us the ongoing refurbishment work had had an impact on them. People and their relatives commenting on workmen “wandering around the building.” Comments from relatives included, "The kitchens need doing and the works have been badly managed, [they have been] disruptive to everyone, especially the residents", "Three men were in [Person’s] room drilling away, I was very angry when I arrived as [Person] was in a state" and, "There is constant drilling. It is not an environment [Person] can thrive in." We discussed this with the provider who was aware of ongoing disruption.

People’s care and support needs were reviewed on a regular basis. We found care plans were written in a way which highlighted outcomes which people wanted to achieve. For instance, how they wished to be supported and by whom. One relative told us, “We stated that she should have no male carers doing personal care. That is in her care plan and they do respect that.”
 

The provider failed to ensure people were supported in line with the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and associated code of practice. This had the potential to reduce people’s human rights.

The MCA provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The MCA requires, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any decisions made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible.

Mental Capacity Assessments had been completed and considered restrictions such as lap belts and sensor mats. We found some best interest records did not consistently document who was involved in decision-making or the views expressed. The manager had already identified this as an area for improvement and was reviewing records to ensure they contained more detailed, person-centred information regarding best interest decisions.