The inspection visit at The Croft took place on 31 March and the 01 April 2015 and was unannounced.
The Croft is a small home registered for up to six people. The people currently accommodated have a diagnoses of mental illness/learning disability. Detailed information about the services provided by the home are contained within a Statement of Purpose and Service User Guide which is available from the home. The home is in a residential area of Morecambe, close to shops and travel links. At the time of the inspection there were four people living at the home.
There was a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
The owner was also the registered manager and the service is run mainly by the registered manager with part time staff.
At the last inspection on the 19 May 2014 the service was meeting the requirements of the regulations that were inspected at that time.
Procedures and systems were in place to safeguard people against abuse. People who lived at the home and relatives we spoke with told us they felt safe and secure at the home. Policies and procedures were in place so relatives and staff were aware of who to contact and what process to follow should they have any concerns. A staff member said, “If I felt abuse was taking place I would report it.”
This is a small home and we observed people were comfortable, relaxed and had freedom of movement around the premises. Staffing levels were sufficient with the owner/registered manager and one part time staff available to enable people to go to their own rooms or the lounge and bedrooms areas. This meant staff would be able to monitor movements of people regularly, because of the nature of the small building and number of staff and management around.
We had received concerns about the heating and lighting at the service. The building was not kept warm, also the lighting was poor so people were at risk of falling and not kept safe. When we visited on the night of 31 March unannounced we found no issues with the lighting and the building was adequately heated.
This is a small home and mainly only one staff on duty for the four people. However the owner lived on the premises and was available most of the time and cared and supported the people with part time staff. The owner/registered manager and staff we spoke with had a good knowledge of the process to follow should they suspect people were not safe and at risk of abuse.
Care records contained an assessment of people’s needs, which lead into a review of any associated risks. These related to potential risks of harm or injury and appropriate actions to manage risk. The people who lived at the home were independent and risk management plans were in place for people when they were out in the community.
The owner/registered manager demonstrated an understanding of the legislation as laid down by the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and the associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The service had policies in place in relation to the MCA and DoLS. We spoke with the owner/registered manager to check their understanding of MCA and DoLS. No applications had been made at the time of the inspection. During the inspection we saw no restrictive practices.
Care records of the four people we looked at contained documented evidence of people’s consent to their care and support. This included information about people’s choices with regard to, activities and food and drink preferences and what they wanted to be known as. This meant people were involved in care planning and staff were aware of people’s individual choices and preferences.
We spoke with all four people who lived at the home and they made it clear they liked the staff member who supported them and looked upon them as friends. Comments included, “We are like one happy family.”
Activities were centred on the four people who lived at the home. When we visited on 31 of March 2015 all the people who lived at the home had gone out to Mencap for an activity in the evening. Mencap was a centre in the community which provided support and social interaction for people who had a learning disability. The next day we spoke with the people who lived at the home about activities and going out in the community to the local shops and events that were taking place. They told us they go out on a regular basis to shops, for walks or to organised events.
The owner/registered manager had a range of audits in place to assess the quality of the service provided. These audits included, medication, care plans of people who lived at the home and the building. Also regular ‘resident’ meetings and informal discussions took place to ensure the views of people who lived at the home and relatives gave their views of how the service could develop.
The inspection visit at The Croft took place on 31 March and the 01 April 2015 and was unannounced.
The Croft is a small home registered for up to six people. The people currently accommodated have a diagnoses of mental illness/learning disability. Detailed information about the services provided by the home are contained within a Statement of Purpose and Service User Guide which is available from the home. The home is in a residential area of Morecambe, close to shops and travel links. At the time of the inspection there were four people living at the home.
There was a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
The owner was also the registered manager and the service is run mainly by the registered manager with part time staff.
At the last inspection on the 19 May 2014 the service was meeting the requirements of the regulations that were inspected at that time.
Procedures and systems were in place to safeguard people against abuse. People who lived at the home and relatives we spoke with told us they felt safe and secure at the home. Policies and procedures were in place so relatives and staff were aware of who to contact and what process to follow should they have any concerns. A staff member said, “If I felt abuse was taking place I would report it.”
This is a small home and we observed people were comfortable, relaxed and had freedom of movement around the premises. Staffing levels were sufficient with the owner/registered manager and one part time staff available to enable people to go to their own rooms or the lounge and bedrooms areas. This meant staff would be able to monitor movements of people regularly, because of the nature of the small building and number of staff and management around.
We had received concerns about the heating and lighting at the service. The building was not kept warm, also the lighting was poor so people were at risk of falling and not kept safe. When we visited on the night of 31 March unannounced we found no issues with the lighting and the building was adequately heated.
This is a small home and mainly only one staff on duty for the four people. However the owner lived on the premises and was available most of the time and cared and supported the people with part time staff. The owner/registered manager and staff we spoke with had a good knowledge of the process to follow should they suspect people were not safe and at risk of abuse.
Care records contained an assessment of people’s needs, which lead into a review of any associated risks. These related to potential risks of harm or injury and appropriate actions to manage risk. The people who lived at the home were independent and risk management plans were in place for people when they were out in the community.
The owner/registered manager demonstrated an understanding of the legislation as laid down by the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and the associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The service had policies in place in relation to the MCA and DoLS. We spoke with the owner/registered manager to check their understanding of MCA and DoLS. No applications had been made at the time of the inspection. During the inspection we saw no restrictive practices.
Care records of the four people we looked at contained documented evidence of people’s consent to their care and support. This included information about people’s choices with regard to, activities and food and drink preferences and what they wanted to be known as. This meant people were involved in care planning and staff were aware of people’s individual choices and preferences.
We spoke with all four people who lived at the home and they made it clear they liked the staff member who supported them and looked upon them as friends. Comments included, “We are like one happy family.”
Activities were centred on the four people who lived at the home. When we visited on 31 of March 2015 all the people who lived at the home had gone out to Mencap for an activity in the evening. Mencap was a centre in the community which provided support and social interaction for people who had a learning disability. The next day we spoke with the people who lived at the home about activities and going out in the community to the local shops and events that were taking place. They told us they go out on a regular basis to shops, for walks or to organised events.
The owner/registered manager had a range of audits in place to assess the quality of the service provided. These audits included, medication, care plans of people who lived at the home and the building. Also regular ‘resident’ meetings and informal discussions took place to ensure the views of people who lived at the home and relatives gave their views of how the service could develop.