CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Croft Cottage
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe, and risks linked to epilepsy, medicines, nutrition and behaviour were identified and reviewed. Inspectors noted concerns about staffing availability as people's needs changed, and some gaps in health and safety checks.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had induction, training and support, and people's health, nutrition and communication needs were identified. Not all staff were receiving supervision as often as the organisation's policy required.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Inspectors saw positive relationships between people and staff, although one relative raised concerns about the attitude of some staff.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed and person-centred, with support for communication, seizures, activities and independence. The provider was asked to improve the recording and management of complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- People and staff generally felt the home was well managed, and audits and improvement plans were in place. Some relatives had concerns about communication and the registered manager's approach, while some records had gaps.
What inspectors found, November 2019
Rated Good in all five areas; inspectors found kind, safe care, but staffing pressures and complaint handling needed attention.
This was an unannounced inspection over two days. The inspector spoke with people, staff, relatives and health professionals. They reviewed care plans, medicine records, staff files, training records and management checks.
The home supported seven people with learning disabilities and epilepsy. Inspectors found people were safe, treated kindly and supported to make choices, build skills and take part in activities. Medicines were managed safely and people's health and nutrition needs were met.
There were some areas to improve. Changes in people's needs were putting pressure on staff availability. Some records and staff supervision were not always completed as required. A relative's concerns had not been formally recorded as a complaint, so the provider was asked to improve how complaints are handled.
The overall rating was Good, with Good ratings for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was unchanged from the previous inspection, which was published on 31 March 2017.
Kind relationships
Inspectors saw staff engaging positively with people and promoting a fun, inclusive atmosphere. Feedback from relatives and professionals also described the staff as caring.
“We observed positive relationships between people and staff. Staff were supportive, encouraging, engaging and communicated with people appropriately.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans covered people's personal care, health, nutrition, leisure, cultural and spiritual needs. Staff knew people's needs and supported choice and independence.
“People had person centred care plans in place which outlined the support required in relation to personal care, health, nutrition, leisure, cultural and spiritual needs.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored correctly, records showed they had been administered, and staff were trained and assessed as competent.
“Medicine administration records showed no gaps in administration.” from the report
Health support
People had access to relevant health professionals, including epilepsy specialists and therapists. Recommendations were recorded and added to care plans.
“Recommendations from professionals were acted on and incorporated into individuals care plans.” from the report
Activities and independence
People had individual activity programmes and were supported with community activities, holidays and life skills such as laundry and making drinks.
“People had individual person-centred weekly activity programmes in place.” from the report
Staffing pressure
needs fixingThe agreed staffing levels were maintained, but inspectors heard that changing needs affected staff availability. Relatives and professionals questioned whether there were enough staff at busy times or to provide all planned activities.
“Staffing levels appeared too low to manage behaviours that challenge effectively or to provide programmes that might reduce their incidence.” from the report
Complaints not formally recorded
needs fixingA relative said they had raised concerns, but these had not been recorded as a formal complaint. The provider agreed to treat the concerns as a formal complaint and respond.
“It is recommended the service works to best practice and the organisations complaints procedure to ensure complaints raised are appropriately recorded and managed.” from the report
Gaps in routine records
minorInspectors found gaps in some health and safety checks, cleaning schedules and wheelchair checks. The registered manager said these were being addressed.
“Records were generally suitably maintained and accessible. We noted some gaps in recording of cleaning schedules, wheelchair checks and health and safety which were being addressed with individual staff.” from the report
Staff supervision
minorNot all staff had supervision as often as the organisation's policy required. The registered manager had put measures in place to improve this.
“The supervision records showed not all staff were having regular supervision in line with the organisations policy.” from the report
- 01How many staff are on duty now, and how do you adjust staffing when people's needs or supervision requirements change?
- 02What has been done since the inspection to improve the recording and handling of complaints?
- 03Are all staff now receiving supervision at the frequency set out in your policy?
- 04How do you check that cleaning schedules, wheelchair checks and other health and safety checks are completed?
- 05How do you make sure people can take part in enough varied activities, including activities outside the home?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and the care provided; all five ratings were assessed as Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 November 2019 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, March 2017
Croft Cottage rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with a concern about transport for community activities.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 7 March 2017. One inspector visited the home, spoke with people, relatives, staff and professionals, and checked the building, care records, medicines records, staffing information and quality checks.
The home provided care for seven people with epilepsy, learning disabilities or physical disabilities. Inspectors found that people were safe, received their medicines properly, had enough skilled staff and could access health professionals. Staff supported people to make choices and took account of their communication needs.
Inspectors saw kind and respectful relationships. People had individual care plans, regular reviews and a range of activities. One relative raised a concern about transport limiting community activities, but the home could use a larger vehicle from another home and was looking for a suitable new vehicle.
The overall rating was Good. Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Good. This meant the home remained Good, as it had been at the previous inspection in December 2014.
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff with the right skills, with staffing adjusted for people's needs and activities. Medicines were audited and given by trained staff.
“People were supported by sufficient staff with the right skills and knowledge to meet their individual needs.” from the report
Kind relationships
Staff knew people well and treated them as equals. Inspectors saw dignity, respect, reassurance and positive interaction.
“The home had a calm, busy but relaxed, fun and homely atmosphere.” from the report
Communication and choice
People had communication passports, pictorial information and other ways to express their wishes. Staff supported people to make choices about their care and daily life.
“Every single resident has a communication passport and the whole team have made sure that everyone is listened to and have a voice and that it matters” from the report
Personalised activities
Weekly activity plans reflected people's interests and included trips into the community. Risk planning helped people with complex medical needs to take part.
“Person centred weekly activity programmes were in place which took account of people's needs, interests and hobbies.” from the report
Checks and improvement
The home carried out regular audits and quality monitoring visits. Feedback from people, relatives and staff was used in an action plan.
“Systems were in place to monitor the quality of the care provided.” from the report
Transport for community activities
minorOne relative said their family member did not have regular community activities because the home's transport was unsuitable. The home could use a larger vehicle from another home and was considering buying a suitable vehicle.
“One relative told us they felt their family member did not have access to regular activities in the community due to the homes transport not been suitable.” from the report
- 01Is suitable transport now available for regular community activities and trips?
- 02How are each person's care plans reviewed when their needs or communication methods change?
- 03How often are medicines audits carried out, and what happens if an error is found?
- 04How do you make sure there are enough trained staff for individual support and planned activities?
- 05How are people who use limited verbal communication involved in decisions and asked for feedback?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five questions: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 March 2017 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Croft Cottage
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 December 2010.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
89 live-in carers within about an hour of Buckinghamshire
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £1,020 to £1,300 a week. 79 can care for a couple. 13 years' experience on average.
“We can all fully relax around Nyarai and she feels like part of our family, which is no mean feat!”
“She was v competent and confident and we felt our mum was safe in her care. She supported us through a difficult time.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.