Croft Manor Residential Home

Updated 14 May 2026

Date of Assessment: 10 and 12 June 2026.

We completed this assessment as part of our regulatory activity, taking into consideration the length of time since the service's previous inspection. At the time of our inspection, there were 25 people using the service. The service did not have a registered manager although a person had been appointed as home manager and was in the process of registering.

We found that the provider was in breach of regulation in relation to consent to care, safe care and treatment and good governance.

Safeguarding concerns were not consistently tracked through to outcomes, learning and closure. Risks to people’s health and safety were not always comprehensively assessed or supported by clear guidance. Environmental risks, including falls, burns, scalds and fire risks, were not consistently identified or controlled. Staffing levels were sufficient, but staff did not always have the knowledge, training and competency required to meet people’s individual needs related to their health conditions. Infection risks were not consistently assessed, monitored or acted upon. Medicines were not always stored, administered or monitored safely.

People’s health and care needs were not always accurately assessed or reflected in consistent care plans and guidance. Prescribed diets, nutrition, hydration and other evidence-based interventions were not consistently understood or delivered. Information was not always accurately shared between services and teams. The provider did not consistently monitor whether planned care was delivered or whether clinical outcomes and risks improved. Consent, capacity and best-interest processes were not consistently completed where restrictive practices or care arrangements required them.

Information provided to people was not always complete, accurate or securely managed. The provider did not consistently remove barriers to people accessing activities and experiences important to them. End-of-life wishes and future care planning were not consistently explored or recorded in sufficient detail.

Leaders did not always demonstrate sufficient knowledge of their regulatory responsibilities or robust oversight of recruitment. Governance systems were ineffective. Audits did not reliably identify concerns found during our inspection and identified actions were not consistently allocated, completed, reviewed or signed off.

Overall, people’s experiences were predominantly positive. People and relatives described staff who were caring, approachable and responsive, and who supported dignity, choice, independence and individual preferences. However, the concerns identified through our assessment showed that these positive experiences were not always underpinned by sufficiently robust systems to ensure people’s assessed health, safety, consent and treatment needs were consistently identified, recorded and managed.

We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns identified at this assessment relating to person-centred care, dignity and respect, consent to care and treatment, and staffing.

In instances where CQC has begun a process of regulatory action, we may publish this information on our website after any representations and/or appeals have been concluded, if the action has been taken forward.

Updated 14 May 2026

People and their relatives spoke positively about the care and support provided and described staff as kind, caring and respectful. People told us, “The staff are kind and interested in what they’re doing” and “Because of the staff, I haven’t got any worries or problems.” Another person told us, “They include you and talk to you.” People described feeling comfortable and valued, with a person telling us, “I couldn’t wish for a better place, really.” This was consistent with our observations of warm, respectful interactions and staff who knew people well.

Relatives described staff as attentive to people’s dignity and individual needs. One relative told us, “They talk to [Person] in a respectful manner. They are always pleasant.” Another said, “Yes, they are nice and shut [Person’s] door and curtains when they are changing her.” Relatives also described staff adapting their communication, with 1 telling us, “They all know [Person’s] preferred name, and they get up close, so she can see and hear them. They say who they are and ask her what she would like.” Another relative told us, “Yes, I do think they know her.” These comments demonstrated that people were recognised as individuals and supported in a respectful and personal way.

People and relatives also described choice and control in everyday life. One relative explained that staff supported their family member to get up and walk about when they wished, saying, “If someone tries to get out of their chair, there’s always a staff member there to help, so that they have the choice to get up and walk about.” Another described how staff supported a person’s routine and preference to stay up later, explaining that they allowed her to continue watching television until she had finished what she wanted to watch.

People were also positive about the food and the service’s willingness to accommodate preferences. One person told us, “It’s absolutely excellent. A top restaurant couldn’t compete with it. If you don’t like it, you don’t get it, they bring you something else and it’s plentiful.”

Relatives expressed strong confidence in the service, with 1 saying, “They don’t call them residents they call them your loved ones. I feel it’s more personal. They are looking after the individual and it’s not about money making things. We are really happy. We couldn’t be happier with the home.” Another said, “They are all lovely and caring,” and another described the staff as “absolutely wonderful”.