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
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control. They found arrangements for visitor testing, safe admissions, PPE, staff and resident testing, hygiene and managing possible outbreaks.
- 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 arrangements during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 28 January 2021. It looked only at infection prevention and control in response to the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors were assured that visitors, new admissions, residents and staff were protected through testing, isolation, screening, social distancing and personal protective equipment. The home had infection-control training, regular checks and supplies of PPE.
Visits were pre-booked and visitors had an on-site negative coronavirus test before entering. The home reported no coronavirus cases at the time of the inspection, and feedback showed that residents and staff felt safe.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give an overall rating or ratings for the other areas of care.
Visitor safety
Visits were controlled through pre-booking, testing, face masks and social distancing. The home also said it would facilitate a visit where someone was desperate to see a loved one.
“All visits to the home were pre-booked.” from the report
Infection-control measures
The home had infection-control training, regular checks and enough PPE. Clinical waste was disposed of to prevent cross-contamination.
“There were systems in place to maintain good infection control standards and regular checks were undertaken.” from the report
Testing and monitoring
Staff were tested weekly and had daily temperature checks. Residents had weekly health observations, including temperature checks, and were tested if they were unwell or had symptoms.
“Staff members were tested weekly for COVI -19 and temperatures taken daily to ensure early signs of possible COVID-19 infection were picked up quickly.” from the report
Safety feedback
The report says all residents and staff who gave feedback were pleased with the provider's approach to COVID-19 and felt safe.
“100% of people living in the home and staff were pleased with the provider's” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What arrangements are now in place for pre-booking visits, visitor testing, masks and social distancing?
- 02How are urgent or emotionally important visits facilitated when routine visiting is restricted?
- 03What testing and isolation arrangements are used for new admissions?
- 04How often are staff tested and residents' health observations taken now?
- 05What is the home's current overall CQC rating, given that this inspection was inspected but not rated?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control only; it did not rate the other areas of care or the service overall. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 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, November 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, with some improvements still needed to communication and end-of-life planning.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 17 October 2019. Inspectors spoke with six people, staff and managers, and reviewed care, medicine, staffing and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and praised the kindness of staff. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, clean surroundings and personalised care.
The inspection also found some gaps. End-of-life care plans were not always adequate. There were no pictorial or other communication aids for people who could not communicate verbally, and some complaints information was incomplete.
The overall Good rating means inspectors found the service met the expected standard at the time of this inspection. Safe had improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection, while the other four ratings remained Good.
Kind and respectful care
People spoke highly of staff, and inspectors observed warm, compassionate and respectful interactions.
“We saw that staff interacted with people with genuine warmth and supported then at their own pace.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people’s needs, wishes and important personal information. Staff used this to provide individual support.
“People's care plans were person centred. Their needs and risks were clearly identified and staff had guidance on how to provide safe and appropriate support.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
There were enough staff, recruitment checks were completed and medicines were stored and administered safely.
“Staffing levels were sufficient to meet people's needs. People told us that staff were always available if they needed support.” from the report
Choice and food
People had choices at mealtimes, could request food when they wanted it and said the food was excellent.
“People told us they had a choice and could have whatever they wanted.” from the report
Listening to people
Meetings and feedback systems gave people opportunities to suggest improvements, and the home showed how it had responded.
“This gave people an update on the action taken in response to their feedback and suggestions.” from the report
End-of-life planning
needs fixingSome people did not have adequate end-of-life care plans setting out their needs and wishes. Inspectors raised this with the managers.
“People did not always have adequate end of life care plans in place to advise staff of their needs and wishes.” from the report
Communication support
needs fixingThere were no pictorial aids or other systems to help people who could not communicate verbally. Written information was not available in alternative formats at the time.
“There were no pictorial aids (pictures or symbols) or other systems in place however to assist people to communicate their needs.” from the report
Complaints information
minorThe complaints procedure had improved but did not yet include contact details for the registered manager, provider and local authority complaints department.
“Contact details for the registered manager, the provider and the local authority complaints department needed to be added to the complaints procedure for people to be aware of.” from the report
Cramped dining area
minorThe dining area was quite cramped. The home said it planned to extend it over the following months.
“The dining area was quite cramped.” from the report
- 01What has been done to make sure every resident has an adequate end-of-life care plan?
- 02How do you support residents who cannot communicate verbally, and are pictorial aids or other communication systems now available?
- 03Have the registered manager, provider and local authority contact details been added to the complaints procedure?
- 04Has the planned extension or improvement to the cramped dining area been completed?
- 05How do you check that care plans and risk assessments are clear and not unnecessarily duplicated?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions; all five ratings were given. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 November 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 The Croft
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 November 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
40 live-in carers within about an hour of Wirral
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. 37 can care for a couple. 8 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.