Archived: Croftside

We found the following examples of good practice.

People were supported in a clean environment that supported people’s rights to maintain contact with those who were important to them.

Staff had received training to help ensure their knowledge on infection prevention and control was up to date. Personal protective equipment and infection control hand gel was available throughout the home.

Testing arrangements followed good practice and the outcome of testing was recorded.

Cleaning schedules were in place and followed. There were designated domestic staff and the registered manager carried out regular checks of the environment and cleanliness.

National guidance was available for staff to refer to and policies and procedures were updated as guidance changed.

We found the following examples of good practice.

The home was clean, tidy and uncluttered. There was a designated cleaning team and audits on cleanliness and infection prevention and control were being done. Audits showed frequently touched surfaces were cleaned regularly. We observed good hand hygiene and the correct process for putting on and removing personal protective equipment (PPE) being undertaken by staff in line with national guidance.

Staff had received training in infection control practices and on managing COVID-19 outbreaks. There were designated link staff available for infection control advice and the registered manager had sought guidance and support from relevant agencies. The provider had ensured sufficient quantities of PPE were available for all staff and visitors.

The registered manager kept staffing arrangements under frequent review to make sure they had sufficient staff to safely meet people's needs and support them in their recreational activities. Staff took breaks separately and were allocated to consistently work in specific areas of the home to reduce the risk of transmission of infection.

The registered manager made sure clear information about maintaining social distancing and hand hygiene was highly visible throughout the home to guide staff and visitors. The registered manager had followed government guidance about visiting. They had supported relatives to visit people safely using the secure visitors room and also to stay in contact using technology, such as Zoom and Skype calls and by telephone.

The registered manager followed best practice around admissions when people came into or returned to the home. They had robust contingency plans and applied local authority guidance to help ensure the safety of the people using the service during the pandemic. The registered manager had arranged for regular COVID-19 testing for staff and for the people who lived in the home. This process for testing was well organised. Appropriate consent for testing and vaccination had been obtained from people, including with support from their families and professionals.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Croftside is a residential care home that provides personal care and accommodation for up to 33 people. At the time of our inspection there were 25 people living at the home. Accommodation is over two floors, one of which provided care and support for people living with dementia.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

The registered manager and staff worked in collaboration with healthcare professionals to provide effective and compassionate end of life care. They had developed mutually respectful relationships with people, and knew about them, their histories, families, likes and dislikes. Staff responded to the social and daily needs of people by providing meaningful activities and encouraging community involvement. People were supported to express their views and ideas, raise any concerns and be actively involved in making decisions about their care and how their home was run. People's communication needs were assessed and understood by staff.

The provider had safeguarding systems and risk assessments to protect people from abuse or unsafe care and incidents and accidents were recorded for analysis. Procedures to support the safe recruitment of staff were followed and there were enough appropriately trained staff on duty day and night to provide the support people needed. People received their medicines as prescribed and systems were in place for their safe management and supply. The premises were well maintained, clean and hygienic and staff followed infection control and prevention procedures.

People were supported to live healthy lives with access to professionals as needed and a choice of a nutritious diet in line with their personal choice and healthcare needs. Staff worked collaboratively with other agencies and professionals to support people’s health, well-being and provide effective and consistent care. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People, their relatives and visiting professionals were positive about the care provided and the staff who were kind and compassionate. The atmosphere within the home was friendly and welcoming, people’s beliefs were respected and their independence and personal dignity promoted. Staff supported people to express their views and ideas and be actively involved in making decisions about their care and how their home was run.

Governance and quality assurance systems and monitoring to drive improvement were evident within the service. Staff felt valued and respected by the management team and the strong leadership of the service promoted a positive and open culture. The registered manager displayed knowledge around the responsibilities of their role and the importance of openness working with other agencies and professionals. Professionals spoke highly of the joined up and co-ordinated care and support that they found working with the home.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published 29 June 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

Croftside is a residential home located in the village of Milnthorpe and is close to local amenities and services. The home provides accommodation on two floors for up to 34 people. The home has three units with the one on the ground floor providing care and support for people living with dementia. The first floor is accessible by a passenger lift and all the bedrooms are for single occupancy. At the time of our visit there were 24 people living in the home.

The service had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The people who lived at Croftside made positive comments about their home and the staff who supported them. People told us “Everything is good” and “It’s a nice place”. People told us that they felt safe living there and that they were well cared for and looked after by the staff. They told us that staff were available to help them when they needed assistance and that staff respected their privacy. Everyone we spoke with praised the staff that supported them. During the inspection, we saw staff giving people their attention and offering reassurance. People also told us that the food was “Good” and “It’s jolly good food”.

People were able to see their friends and families as they wanted without restrictions on when friends and relatives could visit them. People were supported to follow their own interests, practice their religious beliefs and see their friends and families as they wanted.

The care plans and records that we looked at showed that people had been seen by appropriate professionals to help meet their particular physical, nursing and mental health needs. We saw that the assessment and management of risk had been reviewed and updated by staff so that people received appropriate support and treatment. We saw that where appropriate referrals had been made to other professionals such as physiotherapists and occupation therapists.

Medicines were being safely, administered and stored and we saw that accurate records were kept of medicines received and disposed of so all of them could be accounted for. Controlled medicines [those liable to misuse] records were in good order.

The environment of the home was relaxed and welcoming and we found that all areas used by the people living there were clean and smelt fresh. The communal areas had been decorated and arranged to make them homely and relaxing

There were safe recruitment procedures and practices in place to help ensure staff who were employed were suitable for their roles. All the staff we spoke with knew the appropriate action to take if they believed someone was at risk of abuse. This had been part of the training staff received to be able to carry out their roles. We saw that care staff had received induction training and on going training and development and had supervision once employed.

We found that there were adequate staff on duty during the day and at night and that a dependency assessment was being carried out to help keep staffing needs under review.

People knew how they could complain about the service they received and information on this was displayed in the home. People we spoke with were confident that action would be taken in response to any concerns they raised.

The service followed the Mental Capacity Act 2005 Code of practice and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. This helped to protect the rights of people who were not able to make important decisions themselves. People were being supported to have choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. We saw that the registered manager had applied to relevant supervisory authorities for deprivation of liberty authorisations for people. We saw that people who had capacity to make decisions about their care and treatment had been supported to do so.