Croft House Rest Home

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. It was clear from feedback received and observations during the assessment that staff were caring. A person living at the home said, “They [staff] are all kind and caring. They [staff] do so much for me.” People had access to their friends and families and the service supported these relationships. People gave examples of how staff respected their choices and promoted their independence. Staff respected people’s individual choices and made sure they engaged in their care, and treatment to ensure positive outcomes for people.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People told us they were treated with kindness and staff listened to them and communicated with them appropriately. One person told us, “I can’t fault them. They are polite, they never use bad language, and they are never rough with me. When I watch them in the home, I see them treating everyone well.” A second person said, “I have never witnessed any carer being disrespectful to a resident. They don’t use bad language, and they are gentle with everyone. I haven’t seen any one being rushed.”

Staff told us they would act if they had witnessed and behaviours that impacted on people’s privacy and dignity. Staff were able to share people’s preferences, and how they wished to be supported.

Prior to assessment we had received concerns concerns related to 2 people’s dignity. The provider took action to keep people safe and lessen the risks related to people’s safety and, dignity and wellbeing. The local authority worked with the provider to drive improvement within the home.

People’s privacy was not always upheld. Private information was discussed by staff in communal areas of the home. Information was not consistently stored securely. The registered manager acted during the assessment to ensure people's privacy was upheld. We observed staff treating people with compassion, listening and communicating appropriately and when required sensitively.

People’s individual needs and preferences were understood by staff , and these were reflected in their care, treatment and support. People told us they were well treated by kind and caring staff. Comments from people included, “They do respect me as a person. They listen to me and help me out. They respect my dignity at all times, they close doors if they are supporting me and they call me by my name,” and, “I can’t fault them. They are polite, they never use bad language, and they are never rough with me. When I watch them in the home, I see them treating everyone well.”

Staff spoke compassionately about the people they supported and explained how people’s personal circumstances impacted on any behaviours they displayed.

We observed staff communicating with people in a way they could understand. People were able to personalise their rooms with items that held value for them and reflected their individuality and personalities.

While people’s individual needs and preferences were understood, these were not always reflected in their records. This was discussed with the registered manager and provider who acted during the assessment. Daily handover meetings allowed staff the opportunity to gather the knowledge on people’s current needs and preferences.

People told us they were supported to have choice and control over their care and wellbeing. Comments included, “They encourage me to do a lot of things myself. I dress myself, but if I need help, I only have to ask. I can walk myself; they just support me to make sure I am safe.” And, “I can do quite a lot for myself. When I am being independent the carers give me time to get something done.”

Staff knew people’s preferences and how they wished to be supported. Staff told us the care plans were easy to understand and held relevant information to support people.

Choice around mealtimes was not always apparent. Only 1 meal was advertised as available at each mealtime. However, people could have an alternate meal if what was presented was unwanted. This then meant there was a wait while it was prepared. We shared this with the registered manager and provider who stated hey would review this process.

Two people did not have the relevant support to help them when decisions were being made about their care and treatment. The registered manager acted during the assessment to ensure people had access to advocacy support.

People spoke highly of the staff and said they were attentive to their needs. Comments included, “I can’t fault the carers they can’t do enough for me. They constantly ask if they can do anything for me.” And, “I only have to ask for something and they do it straight away. Nothing is too much trouble.”

Staff knew how to support people with their day to day needs. Staff were able to explain how they could recognise if people needed urgent help and what action to take and what aids they needed to assist with this. However, improvements were required to ensure completed care plans included person centred strategies to manage risk.

Conversations took place between people and staff throughout the day. Staff had a good understanding of how to support people to make day to day decisions.

We did not look at Workforce wellbeing and enablement during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.