Croft House Rest Home

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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 71 (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.

Some care plans lacked information about people’s preferences, such as about how they preferred a bath or a shower.

However, care plans were written in a respectful and person-centred way, and other areas of the care plans showed a good level of detail. People confirmed they were involved in planning and reviews of their care, and felt staff knew them and their routines well.

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.

The registered manager organised rotas so that people were supported by familiar and consistent staff. All people said staff knew them well, meaning staff could support them in a way they preferred. Staff commented that handovers were managed well and they had the right information to provide care and support. Staff completed training with regards to specific groups such as people with dementia and learning disabilities.

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

Appropriate policies were in place around data protection, and information was stored securely. The provider captured information about people’s communication needs and preferences in their care plans, and information could be adapted accordingly. Examples included the use of pictures and easy read information, translation and interpretation services. Information was available and displayed clearly on corridors and notice boards.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

There was a complaints policy and the registered manager dealt with low level concerns quickly and effectively. People said they did not need to raise formal complaints. There was an open-door policy for people and their relatives to raise any issues at any time. The service organised resident and relatives’ meetings on a regular basis so that feedback about the care and support could be given, and suggestions could be made.

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

The building and premises were accessible, with plenty of level access space outside for walking, and space for visitors to park. There were bathing facilities available for people that had mobility needs, and moving and handling equipment was available and regularly serviced. People felt safe and were confident in staff ability during moving and handling procedures. Changes were made to the environment following the previous assessment to make it more dementia friendly, such as securing the wardrobes to the wall.

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.

There were appropriate policies and staff completed training to help them understand equality and discrimination. People and staff did not report any concerns about discrimination, but the manager and staff confirmed they would be able to identify this and take action to challenge.

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.

Staff considered people’s wishes about their end-of-life care, and information was captured in care plans. Information about people’s wishes about what to do in the event of a cardiac arrest (DNACPRs) was stored securely and easily accessible. Staff completed appropriate training, and there were links with a local hospice who provided further specific training to staff.