CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Croft Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Inspectors found accurate risk assessments, safe staffing and recruitment, safe medicines systems, and suitable infection control arrangements.
- Effective?
- Good
- This focused inspection did not cover the Effective key question, so no new rating was given.
- Caring?
- Good
- This focused inspection did not cover the Caring key question, so no new rating was given.
- Responsive?
- Good
- People's needs and preferences were recorded in detailed care plans. Complaints were managed appropriately, and people were supported with communication, activities, relationships and end-of-life wishes.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found effective audits, oversight and improvement plans. The management team was described as open, supportive and focused on person-centred care.
What inspectors found, January 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found major improvements in safe, responsive and well-led care since the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced focused inspection. Inspectors visited on 10 and 15 November 2022. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and outside professionals. They also checked care records, medicines records, staff recruitment and training records, and management systems.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Responsive and Well-led were rated Good. Inspectors found that people were protected from abuse, risks were assessed, medicines were managed safely and staffing was sufficient. Care plans were detailed and personalised, and complaints were handled appropriately.
The home had a new manager since the previous inspection. Inspectors found that the manager and provider had worked with the local authority to address earlier concerns. The home was no longer in breach of regulations. The inspection did not assess Effective or Caring, so those areas were not given new ratings in this report.
Improved leadership
A new manager had made substantial changes after the previous inspection. Staff and relatives described the manager as accessible and supportive.
“Since the new manager has been appointed, there has been such a marked improvement.” from the report
Safe care systems
Risks, medicines, safeguarding, staffing and infection control were managed safely. Staff knew people's needs and the actions needed to keep them safe.
“There were systems in place to ensure the safe administration of medicines.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's life stories, wishes, communication needs and preferences. The home used this information to shape individual support and activities.
“Care plans were detailed and reflected people's needs.” from the report
Kind and consistent staff
Inspectors saw caring interactions and found a stable core staff team who knew people well.
“We saw kind and caring interactions during the inspection.” from the report
Strong quality checks
The home had introduced a more comprehensive audit programme. Managers used records and observations to identify problems early and take action.
“There was a robust and effective quality assurance programme in place.” from the report
Activities were still being reviewed
minorMany outside activity providers had stopped operating after the pandemic. The activities programme was being reviewed, with staff providing activities in the meantime.
“Many of the external activity providers used by the service were no longer operating following the pandemic.” from the report
- 01How are you keeping the activities programme varied now that some external activity providers are no longer operating?
- 02How will you assess and monitor my relative's risks, and how often will their care plan be reviewed?
- 03How are medicines checked, and how would you tell us if there was a medicines error?
- 04How can we raise a complaint, and how will we be told what action has been taken?
- 05Can we see how the home has maintained the improvements made since the previous Requires Improvement inspection?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Responsive and Well-led; the Effective and Caring ratings were not newly assessed, and the report says the other ratings used the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 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.
What inspectors found, October 2021
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found safe, kind care but complaints, care records and quality checks were not always good enough.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 18 and 25 May 2021. Inspectors spoke with 11 people, five relatives and five staff. They observed care and checked care, medicines, recruitment, complaints and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe. People received medicines as prescribed, staff knew people's risks and needs, recruitment checks had improved, and infection control arrangements were suitable. However, some risk assessments were inaccurate, and controlled medicines were not always stored correctly. This was fixed during the inspection.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Responsive and Well-led. Complaints were not always recorded or resolved, some care plans and reviews lacked important information, and activities did not always meet people's individual needs. Quality checks and records were still not reliable enough. The home had breached Regulations 16 and 17.
Medicines and infection control
People generally received medicines safely, and inspectors found suitable arrangements for infection prevention, including personal protective equipment, testing and visits.
“People received their medicines as prescribed, and there were safe systems in place to manage the storage, administration and disposal of medicines.” from the report
Kind staff
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors saw staff supporting people calmly, sensitively and compassionately.
“We saw good practice during the inspection, when people were supported by staff, with sensitivity and compassion.” from the report
Improved recruitment
The earlier recruitment breach had been resolved. Required references and criminal record checks were completed before new staff started.
“Recruitment procedures ensured necessary checks were made before new staff commenced employment.” from the report
Teamwork
Staff said they worked well together. They shared changes in people's health and wellbeing during handovers and across the team.
“The staff group described themselves as working well as a team and we saw this in practice during our inspection” from the report
Complaints were not handled reliably
seriousThe home did not always record verbal complaints or show what action had been taken. Concerns about people entering bedrooms were not consistently addressed, leaving people at risk of harm.
“This is a breach of Regulation 16 Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 (Receiving and acting on complaints).” from the report
Quality checks and records
seriousCare records, reviews and management checks did not always identify important changes or risks. Some records belonging to former residents were also left in bedrooms, affecting privacy.
“There was a continued breach of the good governance regulation. Some care records were not accurate.” from the report
Personalised care and activities
needs fixingSome care plans were out of date or missing important information. Reviews did not always show how people's social needs or individual activities were being met.
“Records did not show how people's individual social needs were being met and social stimulation was not effectively addressed in reviews and quality assurance monitoring.” from the report
Risk information was sometimes inaccurate
needs fixingSome risk assessments contained contradictions or inaccuracies. This could affect the consistency and safety of care, although staff generally knew people's risks.
“However, some information in assessments contained contradictions and inaccuracies which we highlighted to the registered manager as a potential risk to consistent and safe care.” from the report
Communication support
needs fixingA person with hearing loss did not always receive the communication aid needed in communal areas. As a result, they did not always know the food choices available.
“However, for one person with hearing loss, staff in communal areas did not routinely use a communication aid to communicate with them.” from the report
- 01How are complaints, including verbal complaints, recorded, investigated and resolved now?
- 02How do you check that care plans and risk assessments are accurate and updated when someone's needs change?
- 03What activities and support are available for my relative's individual interests, mood and social needs?
- 04How do staff support people with hearing loss or other communication needs to make informed choices?
- 05What changes have been made to quality audits and care plan reviews since this inspection?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection covering Safe, Responsive and Well-led; Effective and Caring were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 October 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.
Every inspection of The Croft Residential Home
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- January 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2021Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2019Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 28 September 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
17 live-in carers within about an hour of Devon
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 £1,270 a week. 15 can care for a couple. 13 years' experience on average.
“She is such a warm and gentle person while being professional and competent at the same time.”
“She looked after my mum, who can be incredibly challenging, so well and so gently, and we always felt confident that my mum was getting the best care available.”
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.