CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Croft
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Inspectors found suitable risk plans, enough staff, safe recruitment and safe medicines management.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and reviewed, and staff received induction, training and supervision. People were supported with healthcare, nutrition and decisions made under the Mental Capacity Act.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff promoted privacy, dignity, independence and people's ability to express their views. Relatives said people were treated with kindness and well supported.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans recorded what mattered to people and staff supported meaningful activities, relationships and preferred communication methods. Relatives said concerns were dealt with appropriately.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Management and quality monitoring systems had improved and were identifying and addressing shortfalls. Inspectors found an open, positive culture and better maintenance of the home.
What inspectors found, January 2024
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with improvements since the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection. The inspection activity ran from 15 November to 5 December 2023, with visits on both dates. One inspector observed care, spoke with relatives, staff and managers, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home supports up to six autistic people and people with a learning disability. Inspectors found people were safe, treated with dignity, supported to make choices and helped to take part in meaningful activities. Medicines, staffing, risk management, healthcare support and infection controls were found to be good.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The previous rating was Requires Improvement, with a continued breach of Regulation 17. Inspectors found enough improvement had been made and the home was no longer in breach.
Safety and risk support
Staff understood people's risks and followed their management plans. Safeguarding incidents were reported, investigated and used to reduce the chance of recurrence.
“People were safeguarded from abuse and avoidable harm.” from the report
Training and healthcare
Staff received induction, ongoing training and supervision. People could access a range of healthcare services and had support with nutrition.
“Staff told us and records confirmed they received a comprehensive induction and on-going training programme.” from the report
Respect and communication
Staff understood how people communicated through actions, expressions, pictures, signing and objects of reference. People were supported with privacy, dignity and independence.
“At this inspection we saw staff actively promoting people's privacy and dignity.” from the report
Meaningful lives
People were supported to take part in activities they enjoyed, try new activities and maintain relationships with relatives.
“People were supported to engage in daily activities which had meaning for them and that they enjoyed.” from the report
Improved leadership
The home had improved its governance, maintenance and learning systems since the previous inspection. Analysis of incidents had helped reduce distress and restrictive practice.
“Governance systems were effective in identifying and addressing shortfalls within the service.” from the report
Infection control detail
minorInspectors saw one instance of nail polish being worn at work. The registered manager dealt with it immediately, so this was a minor issue rather than a wider failure found by inspectors.
“We observed an instance of nail polish being worn to work, which the registered manager dealt with immediately.” from the report
Flooring repair
needs fixingAn infection control audit had identified flooring problems in one part of the building. Plans were in place to resolve them, so ask whether the work has now been completed.
“a recent infection prevention and control audit had identified issues with flooring in one part of the building and plans were in place to resolve this.” from the report
- 01Has the flooring issue identified in the infection control audit now been repaired?
- 02How will you make sure staff continue to follow my relative's risk plans and preferred ways of communicating?
- 03How are medicines given when needed, and how do you check that they remain appropriate and person-centred?
- 04What activities and community opportunities would be available for my relative based on their interests and communication needs?
- 05How would our family be involved in best-interest decisions and reviews of our relative's care?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five rating areas, with visits on 15 November and 5 December 2023. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 January 2024 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 2022
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found safer care and better leadership than before, but weak quality checks remained and the home left Special Measures.
This was an unannounced, focused inspection on 11 January 2022. Inspectors looked only at whether the home was safe and well-led. They spoke with people living there, staff and managers, observed daily interactions and checked records and the home’s environment.
There had been clear improvements since the previous inspection, when the service was rated Inadequate and placed in Special Measures. Staff numbers, infection control, medicines, safeguarding and day-to-day management had improved. The home was no longer in breach of three previous regulations.
The provider still had weak systems for checking and fixing problems. Bathroom refurbishment was not properly planned, and there were concerns about staining, possible damp and cleaning parts of the cooker. The provider remained in breach of Regulation 17 on good governance.
The overall rating changed from Inadequate to Requires Improvement, and the home left Special Measures. CQC asked for an action plan and said it would continue to monitor progress.
Enough staff
Staffing levels were sufficient for people’s assessed needs. Consistent agency workers were being used to reduce the effect of permanent staff vacancies.
“Staffing levels were sufficient to ensure people's assessed needs could be met.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored and given safely. Staff were trained and checked regularly, and the home followed guidance intended to avoid over-medication.
“Staff had received training in how to administer medicines in a safe way.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had measures for preventing and managing infections, including safe use of protective equipment and testing.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Positive culture
Inspectors found person-centred support and an inclusive culture. People were supported to maintain relationships and take part in social activities.
“Staff told us the registered manager had driven improvements in the culture within the service and promoted an open and inclusive approach to care.” from the report
Quality checks did not fix known problems
seriousThe provider’s wider governance systems did not respond to environmental issues quickly enough. The provider remained in breach of Regulation 17.
“We found no evidence that people had been harmed. However, the provider's systems remained ineffective in responding to and resolving identified issues.” from the report
Bathrooms needed refurbishment
needs fixingThere was no clear timetable for refurbishing two bathrooms. Inspectors saw stained flooring, raised plasterwork suggesting possible damp and black staining around a window.
“The provider did not have a clear action plan with timescales in place for the refurbishment of the two bathrooms.” from the report
- 01What is the timetable for refurbishing both bathrooms, and what has been done about the staining and possible damp?
- 02How will you make sure all parts of the cooker can be cleaned thoroughly and that debris does not build up again?
- 03What action plan has been sent to CQC for the Regulation 17 breach, and how will you show that each action is complete?
- 04How are you reducing reliance on agency workers and filling permanent support worker vacancies?
- 05What supportive meetings are planned to improve communication with relatives?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 March 2022 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 The Croft
6 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2024Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2022Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2021Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- December 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 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
9 live-in carers within about an hour of Lincolnshire
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.
8 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Martin was more than a carer, he managed the home and became my uncle's best friend, enriching his life during his last few years.”
“Magda was always positive and proactive about trying new things to keep dad busy. She also introduced new ideas for keeping dad healthy.”
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.