You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 25 May 2018

The inspection took place on 26 March and 18 April 2018. The first day of inspection was unannounced. This meant the provider and staff did not know we would be coming.

Crofton Court is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Crofton Court provides care and support for up to 50 people who require support with personal care, some of whom are living with dementia. At the time of the inspection there were 43 people living there.

The service had a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. 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 service is run.

At the last inspection in February 2017 we found that there was a breach of Regulation 11 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. This related to systems not being place to ensure that care and treatment were only provided with the consent of the relevant person or action had been taken in line with the Mental Capacity Act (2005). During this inspection we found the service had made improvements.

We previously inspected Crofton Court in February 2017, at which time the service was not meeting all regulatory standards and was rated ‘Requires Improvement’. At this inspection we found the service had improved to Good.

People and their relatives told us people were safe living at the service. Staff had completed training in safeguarding people and the registered manager actively raised any safeguarding concerns with the local authority.

Risks to people’s safety and wellbeing were assessed and managed. Environmental risk assessments were also in place.

People’s medicines were administered in accordance with best practice and managed in a safe way. People continued to receive their medicines in a timely way and in line with prescribed instructions. There were some ongoing issues with topical medicines administration records and work to improve these was ongoing.

People and relatives told us there were enough staff to meet people’s needs. Staff continued to be recruited in a safe way with all necessary checks carried out prior to their employment.

Staff received regular training, supervisions and annual appraisals to support them in their roles.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People were supported to meet their nutritional needs and to access a range of health professionals. Information of healthcare intervention was included in care records.

People and relatives spoke highly of staff and felt the service was caring. Staff treated people with dignity and respect when supporting them with daily tasks.

People had access to advocacy services if they wished to receive support. Independent Mental Capacity Advocates (IMCAs) services had previously been involved with people in the home.

People’s physical, mental and social needs were assessed prior to them moving into the home. Care plans were personalised, detailed and reviewed regularly and included people’s personal preferences.

There was a range of activities available for people to enjoy in the home. People were also supported, where necessary, to access activities in the local community including going for walks and shopping.

There were audit systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service. The views of people, relatives, staff and professionals were sought by the registered manager via annual questionnaires. There were no negative comments receiv

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 25 May 2018

The service was safe.

People and their relatives told us the service was safe.

Staff knew how to protect people from abuse and the registered manager actively raised safeguarding concerns.

There were enough staff to meet people's needs. New staff members were recruited in a safe way.

Effective

Good

Updated 25 May 2018

The service was effective.

People felt staff knew them well and supported them to meet their needs.

Staff received training, supervisions and annual appraisals to support them in their roles.

People were supported to meet their nutritional needs.

Caring

Good

Updated 25 May 2018

The service was caring.

People and their relatives told us staff were good and helpful.

Staff treated people with dignity and respect. The encouraged people to be as independent as possible.

People had access to advocacy services.

Responsive

Good

Updated 25 May 2018

The service was responsive.

People's needs were assessed prior to moving into the home.

Care plans were personalised, detailed and regularly reviewed. They were up to date and reflected people's needs.

People knew how to make a complaint and felt confident in raising any issues.

Well-led

Good

Updated 25 May 2018

The service was well-led.

People, relatives and staff spoke positively about the registered manager.

Regular staff meetings and audits took place to monitor the quality of the service.

Systems were in place to monitor the quality and safety of service provision.