CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Croftdown House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse, medicines were given as prescribed and there were enough staff. Some windows were not restricted in line with current guidance, creating a falling risk, but this was fixed during the inspection.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's health and wellbeing were monitored, and staff worked with healthcare professionals. Staff had relevant training and supported people with food, drink and independent living skills.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were described as kind and caring. People were involved in decisions, treated with dignity and supported to maintain their independence, relationships and personal interests.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's histories, preferences, routines and mental health needs. People could choose how to spend their time, take part in activities and raise complaints or request changes.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The registered manager was experienced and approachable, and quality checks were in place. Inspectors noted that records of keyworker meetings had not always been kept consistently, and staff were being reminded to improve this.
What inspectors found, June 2019
Croftdown House is rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring support, with a window safety issue fixed during the visit.
This was an unannounced, planned comprehensive inspection. One inspector visited on 15 and 16 May 2019, spoke with five people using the home, a relative and staff, and checked care records, staff files and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and were satisfied with their care. Staff knew people well, respected their choices and supported them to live as independently as possible.
Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines arrangements and good support with health, food and daily life. One window safety problem was found and fixed immediately. The home had been rated Good at the previous inspection in September 2016, so the overall rating remained unchanged.
Kind and respectful care
People said staff were caring and kind. Inspectors observed respectful relationships and found that staff knew people's preferences and personal histories.
“People were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.” from the report
Personalised support
People helped plan their care and could choose how they spent their time. Care plans included personal routines, interests and mental health needs.
“People were fully involved in the care planning process and in deciding how their care was provided which meant they received personalised care which met their needs.” from the report
Good health support
Staff supported people to attend health appointments and followed advice from healthcare professionals. Inspectors found positive effects on people's health and wellbeing.
“Staff followed the recommendations of healthcare professionals involved in the people's care to make sure people received appropriate and consistent care.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
There were enough staff, with arrangements to cover sickness or other unexpected absences. Medicines were stored, administered and recorded appropriately.
“There was sufficient staff to support people safely and meet their needs.” from the report
Window safety
seriousSome windows were not restricted in line with current best practice. This created a risk that someone could fall, but action was taken immediately during the inspection.
“Some windows were not restricted in accordance with current best practice health and safety guidance which meant there was a risk of people falling from them.” from the report
Keyworker meeting records
needs fixingRecords of meetings between people and their keyworkers were not always completed consistently. The manager had reminded staff and was monitoring the records.
“It had been identified that staff were not consistently keeping records of their "keyworker meetings" with people.” from the report
- 01How do you assess and review the risks linked to each person's mental health, routines and interests?
- 02What action was taken to restrict the windows, and how do you now check that window safety remains effective?
- 03How do you make sure keyworker meetings take place and that records of them are completed?
- 04How are people involved in planning their care and choosing their daily activities?
- 05How do staff work with external healthcare professionals when a person's physical or mental health changes?
This was an unannounced planned comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions; the overall Good rating remained the same as at the September 2016 inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 June 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, November 2016
Rated Good in every area; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care with strong management.
Inspectors visited the home without warning on 13 September 2016. They spoke with four people, two relatives, three staff members, the manager and two local authority representatives. They reviewed care files, staff records, medicines records, policies and maintenance information.
The inspectors found that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Medicines were managed safely, staffing levels were suitable, and the home was clean and well maintained. Staff were trained and understood people's mental health needs.
People described care that was kind, respectful and personalised. They were involved in decisions about their care, food and daily activities. The home had systems to handle complaints and check the quality of care.
The overall rating was Good. Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Good. The previous inspection in November 2014 had also found that the provider was meeting the legal requirements inspected.
Safe care and medicines
Risks were assessed and reviewed, with care plans explaining how staff should keep people safe. Medicines records checked by inspectors were complete, and people received medicines safely.
“People were involved in the risk assessment process and had signed their risk assessments to confirm they agreed with the identified risks and the management plans in place to minimise the risks.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People appeared comfortable with staff, who gave them time and treated them respectfully. Privacy, dignity, personal values and cultural preferences were taken into account.
“We observed that staff gave people their full attention during conversations and spoke to people in a considerate and respectful way.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's individual needs, preferences and goals. People were supported to follow their interests, develop independence and spend time as they chose.
“This meant staff had detailed information on how each person wanted their care to be delivered, what was important to them and how to meet their individual needs.” from the report
Strong management and records
The home was described as well managed. Records were up to date, securely stored and promptly available, while audits and feedback were used to improve care.
“There were systems in place to regularly assess and monitor the quality of care people received.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you assess and manage my relative's particular mental health risks?
- 02How would you support my relative to make decisions about their care and daily life?
- 03What activities, hobbies and community opportunities could my relative take part in?
- 04How would you support my relative with medicines, including explaining what each medicine is for?
- 05How do you use care reviews, audits and feedback to improve my relative's care?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall quality of the service. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 November 2016 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 Croftdown House
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2016Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 November 2011.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Croydon
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 £980 to £1,230 a week. 77 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She cared for my mum with Alzheimer's with endless patience and kindness, always arriving with a smile and a positive attitude”
“Terry has been of invaluable help to our family while working as a part-time live-in carer for our mother for approximately 6 months”
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.