CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Croftwood
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed through visitor controls, testing, protective equipment, cleaning and an up-to-date infection control policy. Some communal seating needed improvement for social distancing, and the layout was changed after the inspection.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, February 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control, with some communal seating needing improvement.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 10 February 2021. It looked only at infection prevention and control, including how the home managed coronavirus risks.
Inspectors found good arrangements for visitors, admissions, testing, protective equipment, cleaning and social distancing. Staff also used communication cards to help people communicate while wearing protective equipment.
Some seating in communal areas made social distancing harder. The home changed the layout after the inspection. This visit was inspected but not rated, so it does not provide an overall quality rating.
Infection control
The home had measures to reduce the spread of infection when people entered. Inspectors were assured that protective equipment was used and disposed of safely.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Testing
People living at the home and staff were tested regularly, in line with the guidance in place at the time.
“Staff and residents were tested regularly for COVID-19.” from the report
Clean environment
The home was clean and had daily schedules for extra cleaning, including frequently touched surfaces.
“The home was clean and hygienic. Daily cleaning schedules were in place to ensure more frequent cleaning was completed” from the report
Keeping people connected
People were supported to stay in touch with relatives and friends through video calls. Relatives could visit safely in exceptional circumstances.
“The home had assisted people to keep in touch with friends and relatives using video calls.” from the report
Communal seating
minorSome seating in shared areas made social distancing more difficult. The home changed the layout after the inspection.
“We found that some seating in communal areas could be improved to make it easier for people to socially distance.” from the report
- 01How are communal areas arranged now to make social distancing easier?
- 02How often are people living here and staff tested for COVID-19 now?
- 03How do you manage visits from relatives, including visits in exceptional circumstances?
- 04How do staff help residents communicate when protective equipment makes communication harder?
- 05How often are frequently touched surfaces cleaned?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control only; the service was inspected but not rated overall. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 February 2021 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 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found caring, well-managed care, but staffing around mealtimes and some medicines checks needed attention.
Inspectors carried out a comprehensive inspection on 5 and 6 February 2019. The first day was unannounced. They spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals, and checked care records, medicines, staffing, training, complaints, safety checks and audits.
The home was meeting all the regulations reviewed. People were generally happy and said they felt safe, respected and well cared for. Inspectors found good support with medicines, meals, healthcare, activities, personal choices and communication.
There were some concerns about staff availability around mealtimes. Staffing levels had not been met on seven occasions in the three weeks checked. The home changed its staffing arrangements shortly after the inspection. Inspectors also said some improvements were needed in medicines temperature checks and records for medicines given when needed.
The overall rating and each of the five areas were Good. This means the inspection found care that met the required standards, although families should still ask how the changes made since the inspection have worked in practice.
Kind and respectful staff
People said staff were caring and patient. Inspectors saw people being treated with dignity and involved in everyday choices.
“We observed staff supporting people sensitively and patiently and repeating information when necessary, to ensure that people understood them.” from the report
Good risk management
Risks were assessed and reviewed, including falls and nutrition. The home made referrals to healthcare professionals when needed.
“Risk assessments were in place, including those relating to falls, moving and handling and nutrition and hydration.” from the report
Support with health and nutrition
People received support with meals, drinks and healthcare. Staff worked with professionals such as GPs, nurses, dietitians and speech and language therapists.
“People were supported well with their nutrition, hydration and healthcare needs. They were referred to community healthcare professionals when appropriate.” from the report
Active management and oversight
The registered manager and senior managers carried out regular checks. Feedback from people, relatives and staff was used to make changes.
“The audits completed were effective in ensuring that appropriate levels of quality and safety were being maintained at the service.” from the report
Staffing at mealtimes
needs fixingSome people, relatives and staff reported delays because there were not always enough staff around mealtimes. Staffing levels set by the home were not met on seven occasions in the three weeks checked, although changes were made shortly after the inspection.
“The staffing rotas for three weeks, including the week of our inspection, showed that the staffing levels set by the service had not been met on seven occasions.” from the report
Medicines checks
needs fixingPeople received their medicines as prescribed, but inspectors said improvements were needed in temperature monitoring where medicines were stored and in medicines given when needed.
“We found some improvements were needed in relation to temperature monitoring where medicines were stored and 'when required' medicines.” from the report
Some areas needed redecoration
minorSome parts of the home needed redecoration. The provider had a programme of redecoration and refurbishment under way.
“We saw that some areas of the home were in need of redecoration.” from the report
- 01How many staff are scheduled and actually available during mealtimes now?
- 02What changes were made after the inspection to cover sickness, annual leave and short-notice gaps?
- 03What was changed to improve temperature monitoring for stored medicines?
- 04How are medicines given when needed recorded and checked now?
- 05Which areas have been redecorated or refurbished since the inspection, and what work remains?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five areas of the service, including the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 March 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.
Every inspection of Croftwood
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2019GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 March 2018.
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 Halton
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 £1,260 a week. 89 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“It was clear that she genuinely cared and her warm approach really helped put our minds at ease.”
“He developed a close affinity with Terence, spending time talking with him before he retired to bed and looking after his needs during the night.”
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.