Archived: The Croft

This service was last inspected in January 2016 and was rated Good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

The Croft 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.

There were 3 people living in the home at the time we carried out our inspection.

There was an experienced registered manager responsible for the day-to-day management of the service. 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. The registered manager had been working for the provider organisation for a number of years.

Many of the values that underpin "Registering the Right Support" and other best practice guidance were seen in practice at this service. There was evidence that the core values of choice and promotion of independence were at the centre of people's day to day support. However, the service was located at the bottom of a hill at the edge of a community and all of the people living in the home had mobility needs so could only leave the home using transport. This made community inclusion more challenging but people were accessing local services and facilities such as the hairdressers. The staff worked very hard to ensure that the people had maximum power and control over their lives and day to day choices.

We looked at how the service managed its recruitment of new staff and saw that this was done well and all of the required checks were carried out before staff commenced working at the home.

We spoke with two relatives who gave positive feedback about the home and the staff who worked in it. They told us that the staff supported their relatives well. We saw that warm, positive relationships with people were apparent. The people had lived in the home for over 22 years and were living happy lives, as independently as possible, supported by staff who knew them well.

Staff spoken with and records seen confirmed training had been provided to enable them to support the people with their specific needs. We found staff were knowledgeable about the support needs of people in their care. We observed staff providing support to people throughout our inspection visit. We saw they knew people well and how they liked to be cared for.

We found medication procedures at the home were safe. Staff responsible for the administration of medicines had received training to ensure they had the competency and skills required. Medicines were kept safely with appropriate arrangements for storage in place.

The registered manager understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). This meant they were working within the law to support people who may lack capacity to make their own decisions. We saw that people were supported to make their own decisions whenever this was possible and their choices were respected.

Care plans were person centred and driven by the people who lived in the home. They detailed how people wished and needed to be cared for. We identified that some updates were required and the registered manager showed us that they were already in process of making amendments to show how people’s needed had changed.

The registered manager used a variety of methods to assess and monitor the quality of the service. These included regular audits of the service and staff meetings to seek the views of staff about the service. The provider organisation also closely monitored the home and the manager was supported by a regional management team.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people who used the service, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People are treated with respect and dignity by the staff. This was seen through the way the staff centred their work on the needs of people and the way they respectfully interacted with people. People were not able to tell us whether they felt safe but our observations noted people to appear relaxed and happy with the staff team. Safeguarding procedures are robust and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported.

The home had proper policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. No one had been subject to a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DOL's) application, although recent changes at a national level meant that this could change. Relative were informed of this, although no applications had needed to be submitted.

Is the service effective?

There was information about an advocacy service available if people needed it. No one accessed advocacy service yet this was under review given the differing levels of family involvement in people's care.

People's health and care needs were assessed with them, and given the communication needs of people. Family members had been involved in writing their plans of care. Specialist dietary needs had been identified in care plans where required.

Is the service caring?

Our observations noted that staff were attentive to the needs of the people and that their work focussed exclusively on the needs of people. People were not able to tell us about their experiences of the support they received yet we were able to tell from non-verbal communication that they felt at ease and happy with the staff team.

Is the service responsive?

The service had a Quality Assurance processes in place which sought the views of people involved in the support of people living at The Croft. When issues had been identified for improvement, they were dealt with promptly. Where changes to the overall care of people had occurred, we saw evidence that families had been informed of these. Staff considered that they were listened to by the provider.

Is the service well-led?

The service had a manager who was registered with us to carry out their roles. We noted that the service always told us when there were significant incidents. The service remained part of a larger organisation which had systems in place to ensure that people received a person centred level of support. We saw evidence in care plans that the service worked with other agencies to ensure positive outcomes for people.

You can see our judgements on the front page of this report.

No relatives visited on the day of our visit yet an invitation was extended to them to comment on the support their relations received. No comments were received at the time of this report yet any comments will be used as part of our ongoing monitoring of the service. We spoke to two staff members. Staff felt supported in their role, looked forward to coming to work at the The Croft and felt that there was a good team working at the service.