You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 18 July 2018

Crockstead Farm House is a care home. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The home is registered to accommodate up to five people and provides care and support for three adults with learning disabilities and or autism. The home is sited in a rural area close to a small town and provides a homely environment for people, with access to a garden.

The inspection was announced and was carried out on 22 March 2018 by one inspector.

There was a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the home. Like registered providers, they are 'registered persons'. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the home is run.

The care service is delivered 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 which ensure people using the service can live as ordinary life as any citizen.

People's medicines were managed safely. However, we found that the controlled drugs cabinet did not meet current specification. When we pointed this out to the provider and registered manager, they took immediate action to replace the cabinet and updated CQC when this was done. People received their medicines as prescribed by staff who had been trained to administer medicines safely.

People were kept safe; the registered manager and staff knew their responsibilities to report any concerns under safeguarding vulnerable adults and protect people from abuse.

There were sufficient staff deployed to meet people's needs and keep them safe, both at the home and while accessing the local community. Recruitment procedures were safe and supported the provider to make safer recruitments decisions to employ suitable staff.

Staff received training, supervision and appraisal to support them in their roles and to provide them with the required skills, knowledge and competencies.

Risks associated with people's health, safety and welfare had been identified and assessed, and guidance was in place to help staff to reduce those risks. Emergency and evacuation procedures were in place and staff understood what to do in the event of an emergency.

Staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and worked within ensuring they sought people's consent and acted in people's best interest. Deprivation of liberty safeguards had been submitted to the local authority for authorisation when required.

People had access to health care services when required and were supported by staff to maintain their health and wellbeing. People were offered a choice of food and drink that met their dietary needs and personal choices.

People took part in a wide range of activities in line with their interests and personal goals. Staff were kind and caring and treated people with dignity and respect. People were encouraged to maintain important relationships with family and friends.

Systems were in place to monitor and assess the quality and safety of the service, including complaints and compliments. People and relatives were offered opportunities to feedback their views about the care provided and this was used to improve the service. However some policies and procedures had not been reviewed regular and contained outdated information. When we pointed this out to the provider they took immediate action to rectify this.

Staff felt very supported by the registered manager who was approachable and involved them in the development of the service. The registered manager understood their legal responsibilities under the Health and Social Care Act 2008, including submitting notifications of

Inspection areas



Updated 18 July 2018

The service was safe

Medicines were managed in a safe way. However the controlled drugs cabinet did not meet current requirements. The provider took immediate action to rectify this.

Staff understood safeguarding principles and what to do if they were concerned about people.

Risks to people's health and safety were assessed and plans of care put in place for staff to follow. Staff knew people well and how to keep them safe.

Staffing levels were well managed which promoted people's safety and helped to ensure a good standard of support was consistently provided to people.



Updated 18 July 2018

The service was effective

Staff received a range of training and support relevant to their role. Staff felt well supported by the registered manager and provider.

The service worked effectively with a range of health care professionals to ensure people's needs were met.

The service was compliant with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

People's nutritional needs were met.



Updated 18 July 2018

The service was caring

People were treated with dignity and respect and staff knew people's care needs well.

People were supported and encouraged to maintain links with the local community.

Staff promoted people's involvement in their care plans.



Updated 18 July 2018

The service was responsive

Care records and people's assessed needs were regularly reviewed.

People were involved in deciding what activities they liked to do on a daily basis.

People received person centred care, which focused on their individual needs.

The provider had a complaints procedure in place and this was clearly on display in the service.



Updated 18 July 2018

The service was well led

Staff felt very supported and respected by the registered manager and provider. They had confidence in the management of the service.

A range of quality audit was in place to drive improvements within the service. However we found that some policies and procedures had not been reviewed regularly, The provider took immediate action to rectify this.

People who used the service had a say in how it was run.