CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Croston Park
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm, and medicines, infection control, emergency plans and recruitment systems were generally safe. Inspectors raised concerns that there were not enough staff deployed for regular oversight in all areas and found some inconsistent medicines records.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and staff had the training and support needed for their roles. People had access to suitable food, drinks, healthcare professionals and support that followed the Mental Capacity Act.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind, patient and respectful. People were involved in decisions, and staff promoted privacy, dignity, independence and personal preferences.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and staff knew people's needs and preferences. People could take part in activities, maintain relationships, raise complaints and receive end of life care that met their needs.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found a positive culture, clear roles and systems for checking and improving the service. The provider had improved its audits and governance since the previous inspection and was no longer in breach.
What inspectors found, August 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care and clear improvements, but raised concerns about staffing levels and some medicines records.
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection on 21 and 26 June 2023. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, looked around the home and reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were treated with kindness and respect, received personalised care, had access to healthcare and were supported to make choices.
There were some shortfalls. Records for thickeners and creams were not always consistent, and inspectors were concerned that staffing was not always enough to provide regular oversight in every area. The provider said it had already introduced training and process changes.
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and respected their choices, privacy and independence. Inspectors saw patient and compassionate interactions.
“Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people's needs and respected their preferences such as how they liked to spend their day and their lifestyle choices.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans covered people's health, communication, nutrition, personal care and lifestyle needs. Staff adapted how they communicated with each person.
“Each person had a person-centred care plan, which clearly outlined the different aspects of their care, including their physical and mental health needs, personal care routines, nutrition and hydration, and other support needs.” from the report
Improved management
The provider had strengthened audits and checks since the previous inspection. Inspectors found a positive culture and staff felt supported by management.
“The provider had systems to assess and monitor the service. Audits and checks were in place and were completed to identify issues and drive improvement, and improvements could be seen based on the analysis of information gathered.” from the report
Good links with healthcare
The home worked with GPs, nurses and specialist services. Inspectors found that people's healthcare needs were being met.
“Staff worked with other agencies, such as GPs, community nurses, opticians, and specialist services to ensure people's physical and emotional needs were met.” from the report
Staffing oversight
needs fixingInspectors raised concerns that staffing levels on the inspection day did not provide regular oversight in all areas of the home. The provider said staff shortages and the inspection had affected the support seen that day.
“However, during our inspection we shared concerns that there were not enough staff deployed to provide regular oversight in all areas of the home.” from the report
Medicines records
needs fixingRecords for thickeners used by people with swallowing difficulties were inconsistent. Records of creams were also not always completed, so inspectors could not be sure they had been applied as directed.
“The recording of thickeners for people with swallowing difficulties was inconsistent.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure there are enough staff to provide regular oversight in every area of the home?
- 02How is the new process checking that creams are recorded every time they are applied?
- 03How are staff recording the correct level of thickener for people with swallowing difficulties?
- 04What oversight does the nutritional lead now provide for thickener records and other nutrition needs?
- 05Has the manager completed the CQC registration process?
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection covering all five key questions, with specific infection prevention and control checks and follow-up of action from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 August 2023 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, January 2023
Croston Park was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind staff and some progress, but medicines, nutrition records and quality checks were not always safe or effective.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 19 October 2022. Inspectors checked Safe and Well-led, spoke with people, relatives, staff and professionals, observed care, looked around the home, and reviewed care, medicines and management records.
The home had made improvements since the previous inspection. There were enough staff, recruitment was safe, the home was clean, and people and relatives generally said they felt safe and were treated kindly. Staff worked well together and gave positive feedback about the new manager.
Important problems remained. Some medicines were expired or not recorded properly, and records did not always show that creams, patches, thickened drinks or prescribed feeds had been given correctly. The home’s checks had not found or fixed these issues, so the overall rating remained Requires Improvement. The home had been rated Requires Improvement for the last three inspections.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors found that staff were caring, respectful and person-centred.
“Staff worked very well together as a team and were caring and respectful towards people they supported.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people’s needs safely. Recruitment checks were also in place.
“There were enough staff on duty to meet people's needs safely.” from the report
Safe environment
The premises and equipment were maintained, and equipment was inspected and serviced when needed. The home was also clean and hygienic.
“The provider ensured the environment and equipment were safe.” from the report
Positive management changes
There had been a change in management. Staff and relatives gave positive feedback about the new manager and the support available.
“We received positive feedback about the impact the new manager was having on the service.” from the report
Medicines were not always safe
seriousSome medicines were available after their expiry date. Records for creams and patches were incomplete, and some plans for when-required medicines were out of date or incorrect.
“Other medicines were still available for staff to give when they were passed their expiry date.” from the report
Nutrition and swallowing records
seriousRecords showed that thickened drinks were not always prepared correctly. Records for prescribed feeds were also incomplete or not supported by up-to-date information.
“Records for adding thickening powder to drinks, for people who have difficulty swallowing, showed people's drinks were not always made correctly” from the report
Quality checks missed problems
seriousThe provider’s audits and systems did not identify or correct the problems found with medicines, nutrition and care records. This meant the provider could not always show what care people had received.
“The provider's systems had not ensured records related to people's care were accurate and up to date.” from the report
- 01What has been done to remove expired medicines and make sure opening dates are recorded?
- 02How are you now checking that creams and patches are recorded correctly, including patch application sites?
- 03How do you make sure thickened drinks are prepared correctly and safely for people at risk of choking?
- 04How are prescribed feeds checked and recorded so staff have current instructions?
- 05What action has been taken in response to the warning notice and the breach of Regulation 17?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other key question ratings were carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 January 2023 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 Croston Park
6 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- August 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2023Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2022Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2021Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- May 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2022
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 September 2022.
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
85 live-in carers within about an hour of Lancashire
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. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
“Thanks to Tracy, Dad was always immaculately dressed and clean, his meals were all home cooked and nutritionally well balanced and his home was always kept really clean and tidy.”
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.