Croft Manor Residential 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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 64 (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 ensured people were at the centre of their care and treatment and that staff understood and responded to their individual needs, preferences and communication styles.

We observed people appearing comfortable and engaged with staff, interacting positively through conversation and sharing information about their life stories, backgrounds and planned activities. Staff used people’s preferred names and adapted their communication to individual needs. This demonstrated that staff recognised people as individuals and adapted their approach to support how people preferred to communicate and interact.

Whilst care plans were not always consistent or accurate in reflecting people’s needs, staff we spoke with understood people’s care needs. The staff team was consistent and had good means of communicating changes to people’s care or presentation between shifts.

We observed staff interacting with people individually and providing support according to their needs and people and relatives described positive relationships with staff. One person told us, “They're lovely. They do know me well.” Relatives also commented, “They know her well and her anxiety can be difficult, but they are very patient with her” and “I have not met one of the staff who is not kind or helpful.” This demonstrated that staff understood people’s individual needs and responses providing patient and appropriate support, and that people experienced warm, supportive relationships with staff, contributing to their comfort and wellbeing.

The provider supported continuity of care and developed consistent relationships between people and staff. Staffing arrangements and induction processes supported staff to understand people’s individual needs and provide consistent care.

The provider-maintained continuity of staffing, which supported consistent care and relationships. Staff rotas showed continuity of care, and the service had not used agency staff for more than 3 months. This meant people were more likely to receive support from staff who knew them and their individual needs, promoting stability in care.

Staff induction records showed that staff were supported to understand the needs of people using the service. This helped staff develop knowledge of people’s individual needs and circumstances and supported consistent care from the beginning of their employment.

People and relatives confirmed that they experienced continuity in the staff supporting them. Relatives told us, "There are the regular faces" and "Mainly, I see the same staff." This demonstrated that people experienced familiar staff and consistent relationships, supporting continuity and stability in their care.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats tailored to people’s individual needs. Information provided about the service was not consistently complete, and arrangements for maintaining the confidentiality of people’s information were not always effective.

The provider did not ensure information given to people and others was sufficiently complete and accurate. The service user guide included information about complaints, the weekly menu, fire procedures and the Department of Health and National Health Service (NHS) dignity campaign. However, it did not provide straightforward information about the services the care home offered, what it could and could not provide, or how it determined whether it could meet a person’s needs. It also did not explain how services were charged for, how safeguarding complaints were managed, the contractual terms of the service, or provide the provider’s and manager’s details. While some of this information was available within the provider's Statement of Purpose, it was not included within the service user guide itself. This meant the provider had not ensured people and their representatives were provided with a single, comprehensive and accessible source of information about the service, limiting transparency and understanding of how care was provided and managed.

The provider did not consistently protect the confidentiality of people’s information. We found people’s records stored in an unlocked cupboard. This meant confidential information was not securely stored and could potentially be accessed by people who were not authorised to view it. We fed this back to the home manager, who locked the room shortly afterwards. Although the provider took prompt action when this was identified, our finding demonstrated that arrangements to protect confidential information were not consistently effective.

However, the provider did provide some information in formats that supported people’s individual needs. The activities planner included pictures, and the date, time, weather and day of the week were displayed in the reception area. People told us this helped them remember information. Staff also adapted their communication for a person with communication difficulties, who told us further support was “unnecessary”. This demonstrated that staff considered individual communication needs and took steps to support them to access and understand information.

People and relatives also described effective communication from staff. Relatives told us, “They rang about a small fall and when she isn't eating so well,” “They keep you up to date,” and “They very much keep us informed.” This demonstrated that people and their relatives were generally kept informed about relevant changes and concerns relating to their care and wellbeing.

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 kept them informed about changes made as a result of their views.

The provider had established regular opportunities for people to share their views and influence their care. The service held monthly meetings with people to gather feedback, discuss concerns and consider their care and support needs. Records confirmed these meetings took place and showed people were involved in discussions about their support. The provider also used surveys to gather feedback, with the 2025 survey showing feedback was mainly positive. This meant people had regular opportunities to express their views and contribute to how their care and support was provided.

The provider had effective arrangements for people to raise concerns and complaints. An up-to-date complaints policy and procedure was in place, supported by a complaints book used to record and follow up concerns. Relatives told us, “I can talk to the staff in charge and the managers,” and, “They normally follow anything through.” Another relative described how staff acknowledged responsibility when a person’s mobile phone was damaged and replaced it, saying, “They were very good about it.” This demonstrated that people and relatives felt able to raise concerns and that the provider responded appropriately when issues were identified.

People and relatives gave examples of their feedback resulting in action. A relative told us, “Mums legs were stinging I raised that and they sort things out.” A person commented, “I tell them things now and then and it always seems to get back to the right people.” Relatives also described attending meetings where they could ask questions and give their views about what the service could do better. This demonstrated that people's views were communicated to relevant staff and could result in changes or action to address their concerns.

The provider also involved relatives through meetings and educational sessions to support their understanding of people’s needs. Relatives described dementia meetings and training as “very good and very useful” and “invaluable”. This supported relatives to develop their understanding of dementia and participate meaningfully in discussions about people’s care and wellbeing.

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

Records showed people were supported to attend healthcare appointments, and a range of healthcare professionals visited the service regularly. Appointment outcomes and professional guidance were recorded in people’s records and shared with staff through handovers. This meant people could access appropriate healthcare and staff had information about professional advice to support continuity of care.

People and relatives confirmed that staff arranged access to healthcare according to individual needs. One person told us, “Oh, yes. They make sure you’ve got someone to go with you [appointments].” A relative told us, “They get in touch with the doctors.” This demonstrated that staff supported people to access healthcare professionals and appointments when needed.

Staff also planned transport and practical support to reduce barriers to attending appointments. One relative told us, “They did ask me if I was available to take her... they organised NHS transport.” This demonstrated that the provider considered people’s individual circumstances and made practical arrangements to support access to healthcare.

The provider did not always identify and respond effectively to information about people’s individual circumstances and preferences that could affect their experiences and outcomes. As a result, some people experienced barriers to accessing activities and experiences that were important to them.

The provider did not consistently ensure people could access experiences that were important to them. One person told us, “I feel like I’m missing it like mad. The priest has been to see me, and I can talk to Him in my head, but the staff here aren’t helpful about attending services. Some go to church and some don’t.” Another person told us, “Sometimes there's a big problem when I want to go out... It depends on staffing.” This demonstrated that some people experienced barriers to accessing religious activities and going out, which could limit their ability to participate in activities and maintain connections that were important to them.

However, the provider had some arrangements to promote equality and inclusion. An equality and diversity policy was in place, and staff had completed equality and diversity training. People were generally supported to participate in activities of their choice, with preferences recorded in their care plans. This supported staff awareness of inclusive practice and provided information about people's individual preferences.

The provider had also identified and acted on an environmental barrier affecting people with mobility impairments. Management identified that the layout and environment restricted access to the garden for some people and adapted the environment to enable everyone to access it. A relative also told us, “They talked to me about her having glasses, they did make the arrangements.” This demonstrated that, in some areas, the provider identified individual barriers and took action to improve people’s access and participation.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, including the end of their life, in sufficient detail to ensure their wishes were understood and could guide future care.

The provider did not consistently ensure people had sufficiently detailed end-of-life care plans to guide staff in meeting their wishes. One person’s end of life care plan recorded that they had a do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) decision in place and wished to remain at the service, pain free and comfortable. However, the plan did not describe how these wishes should be achieved in practice. For example, it did not include information about the person's preferred place of care should their needs change, who should be involved in decision-making, any spiritual, cultural or religious wishes, preferred visitors, or guidance for staff on recognising and responding to deterioration. Aside from contacting the GP and district nurses to arrange pain relief, there was little information to guide staff in delivering care in accordance with the person's stated preferences. As a result, the provider could not demonstrate that staff had access to sufficiently detailed information to consistently support the person's wishes at the end of their life.

The provider did not ensure end-of-life wishes were consistently explored and recorded for people. We found that 3 people had no end-of-life care plan despite records showing a DNACPR decision was in place. For another person, the death and dying care plan stated, “Discussion to be had with myself and my daughters regarding my [end-of-life] wishes,” but there was no record that these discussions had taken place or that the person's wishes had subsequently been documented. This meant the provider could not demonstrate that people's preferences, values and choices regarding their future care had been explored, recorded and made available to guide staff and healthcare professionals should their condition deteriorate.

Relatives also confirmed that some people had decisions in place around resuscitation or funeral director arrangements, with 1 relative telling us, “They know that's what my mum wanted.”