The Croft

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

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 needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person centred care.

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 provider 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. We found care plans were not always person centred.

Care plans were not always completed with information about people’s life history, their likes and dislikes.

One person had been moved to another unit while refurbishment work was carried out. This meant the staff supporting them were not always familiar to them. We observed the person had breakfast in front of them, it appeared the toast had been dropped into their cup of tea. When we discussed this with a member of staff, they told us the person usually has either a drink or food given at one time. The member of staff told us “Staff just don’t know [person] here.

Staff observed were task focused. We did not observe any staff member sitting and talking to people about their likes or family or work history.

We received mixed feedback from people and relatives about how person centred support was at The Croft. Positive comments included, "I choose my clothes myself" and "I have a shower every morning." However other comments which were less positive included, “[Person] is not always dressed well", "I/We have never seen them in the vests we provided" and, "Sometimes they are in other people's clothing."

We gave feedback to the provider to ensure people’s life histories are known to staff to support good communication with them.
 

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.

Each person had a care plan in place. Systems were in place to review these on a regular basis
Staff told us they kept up to date with people's needs by reading care plans and daily notes, attending handover meetings, and receiving emails.

Staff demonstrated knowledge of people’s needs and how information was shared. The manager and staff worked with external healthcare professionals.
 

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

Since 2016 onwards all organisations that provide publicly funded adult social care are legally required to follow the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). The standard was introduced to make sure people are given information in a way they can understand. The standard applies to all people with a disability, impairment or sensory loss and in some circumstances to their carers. We found the provider had assessed people’s communication needs. Information about people was stored securely and in line with the providers policy.

Staff supported people with communication. One relative told us, “[Person] is profoundly deaf and staff do try, but interactions are difficult. We have introduced a dry white board, staff all know of this and use that.”
 

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

People told us they would speak with staff if they had any concerns, however they were less confident to raise formal complaints. Relatives told us they did not have confidence in raising concerns or complaints. One person told us, "My son has written to the Company and wrote to the manager and he never replied, that is ignorance."

Relatives told us they had complained to the provider. Feedback on those complaints were mixed. One relative told us, they had been raising concerns since December 2025, and to date have not had a satisfactory response. Other relatives told us they were informed by the manager about improvements. However, they told us, "The manager came to the family and friends meeting and said lots of things were going to happen, but nothing has happened" and, "Since last September I have seen no improvements, all talk and no action."

Systems were in place to gather feedback, including meetings, suggestion schemes and a complaints process. We have provided feedback to the provider to ensure all complaints are recorded and acted upon to help drive improvements.

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

People did not experience discrimination or inequality in how their care was delivered and the support they received. There were policies to promote people’s equality and diversity needs. Staff received training on equality, diversity and inclusion.

However, people and their relatives have commented on equity of access to social stimulation and opportunities for meaningful engagement. The provider and manager were aware of the lack of organised activities. We discussed how the manager could facilitate changes with the currently staffing levels in the home.
 

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.

Staff were encouraged to consider any barriers that may affect a person's experience and make reasonable adjustments where possible. Daily stand-up meetings and managers walkarounds help to identify any inequalities in people’s care.

Relatives told us staff supported people who experienced distress, so they had the same opportunities to experience good care. Comments included, "Staff are nice, nice characters and doing their utmost in challenging situations", "They have now got some lovely staff coming through” and "Staff are kind and Christian [in their nature], they care… "I have no problem with them [staff], it is the way they talk and care for [person]."

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.

Where people had shared their views on end of life wishes, these were recorded to ensure staff were fully aware of those views. For instance, if people had agreed for a do not resuscitate order, this was recorded and respected by staff.

Where appropriate and shared with the staff people’s religious beliefs were included in their advanced care plan.