Archived: Croft House Care Home

Updated 23 December 2016

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 8, 17 and 18 November 2016. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a short break service for adults who are sometimes out during the day, so we needed to be sure someone would be in.

The inspection was carried out by one adult social care inspector on 8 November 2016 and an expert by experience on 17 and 18 November 2016. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. The expert by experience contacted relatives of the people who used the service to obtain their views.

Before the inspection the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and any improvements they plan to make.

In addition to the PIR we also reviewed other information we held about the service and the provider. This included previous inspection reports and statutory notifications we had received from the provider. Notifications are changes, event or incidents the provider is legally obliged to send to CQC within required timescales.

Some of the people who used the service during our visit had complex needs which limited their communication. This meant they could not always tell us their views of the service, so we asked their relatives for their views. We spoke with nine relatives on the telephone.

During the visit we spent time with five people who were using the service. We spoke with the registered manager, the service manager (representative of the provider), the deputy manager, the acting deputy manager, one senior support worker, four support workers, the chef and the administrator.

We viewed a range of care records and records relating to how the service was managed. These included the care records of three people, the medicines records of four people and three staff recruitment and training files.

Updated 23 December 2016

This inspection took place on 8, 17 and 18 November 2016. The provider was given 48 hours' notice to make sure someone would be in. The last inspection was carried out on 8 October 2013. The service met the regulations we inspected at that time.

Croft House is a short break service for adults who have learning disabilities, autistic spectrum disorders, physical disabilities and/or complex needs. There were five people using the service when we visited. Care is provided to approximately 70 people each year.

The service had a registered manager. 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.

Some of the people who used the service during our visit had complex needs which limited their communication. This meant they could not always tell us their views of the service, so we asked their relatives for their views.

All the relatives we spoke with said they thought Croft House was safe. One relative said, “Oh yes it’s safe and [family member] is extremely happy there." Another relative told us, “I’ve got no worries and am very happy. The staff are fantastic.”

Staff had completed training in how to protect people from harm and abuse and understood the different forms and potential signs of abuse. Staff told us they had confidence in the management team to deal with safeguarding issues promptly and effectively. Records showed safeguarding concerns were recorded and dealt with appropriately and promptly.

A thorough recruitment and selection process was in place which ensured staff had the right skills and experience to support people who used the service. Identity and background checks had been completed which included references from previous employers and a disclosure and barring service (DBS) check. DBS checks help employers make safer recruitment decisions by preventing unsuitable people from working with vulnerable people.

Risks to people's health and safety were recorded in care files. These included risk assessments about people’s individual care needs such as using specialist equipment, pressure damage and nutrition. Other required checks such as gas safety were up to date.

There was a pleasant and homely atmosphere at the service. The accommodation was comfortable, clean and spacious. All relatives we spoke with said they were happy with the premises. One relative said, “It’s very homely.”

The arrangements for managing people’s medicines were safe. Medicines were stored securely and there were clear policies in place for supporting people with their medicines. Medicine records were up to date with no gaps or inaccuracies.

Staff received relevant training to support people in the right way. Staff received regular supervisions and appraisals, and told us they felt supported.

People were supported to maintain a balanced diet and to have enough to eat and drink. The chef offered a daily menu which was based on people’s preferences. A daily menu board was on display in the dining room in written and pictorial format.

People who could communicate their views verbally told us they liked staying at Croft House and that staff treated them well. One person who used the service told us, “It’s brilliant here. All the staff are friendly. I would give this place a five star rating.”

People who used the service were comfortable with staff and there was a welcoming atmosphere. Staff spoke to people kindly and calmly and explained what they were doing before providing care and support. Staff supported people to do the things they enjoyed and also encouraged independence with daily living. Staff described people who used the service as ‘guests’ and talked about people who used the service with affection and respect.

Staff had a clear understanding of people and how they liked to be supported. People’s independence was encouraged without unnecessary risks to their safety. Staff were responsive to people’s needs and acted promptly and appropriately when needs changed. Support plans were well written and specific to people’s individual needs. Records were up to date and reviewed regularly.

Relatives and staff felt the service was well managed. One relative told us, “[Registered manager] is always ready to put things right.” Another relative said, “[Registered manager] is extremely co-operative.”

There was an effective quality assurance system in place to monitor key areas such as safeguarding concerns, accidents, incidents and staffing issues. The service had an improvement plan which set out actions to be taken to improve and develop the service further. Feedback from people who used the service and their families was sought regularly and acted upon.