Archived: Coppice Court Care Home

Updated 4 April 2017

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 9 and 16 February 2017 and was unannounced. This was undertaken by two inspectors. Before our inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service. We considered information which included safeguarding alerts that had been made and notifications which had been submitted. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to tell us about by law. On this occasion we did not ask the provider to complete a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

Before the inspection we spoke with the local authority who commissioned care for people from the service. During the inspection we were able to talk with ten people who used the service and six relatives. We also spoke with 13 staff members including the acting manager, deputy manager, three registered nurses, head chef, activities co-ordinator, five care staff and the maintenance person. We spoke with a visiting health care professional during the inspection and a GP and specialist nurse afterwards. We also contacted Healthwatch for their views on the service. Healthwatch is the independent consumer champion created to gather and represent the views of the public on issues relating to health and social care.

We spent time observing people in areas throughout the home and saw interaction between people, staff and visiting entertainers. Some people were unable to speak with us, so we used other methods to help us understand their experiences. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI) during the day on the ground floor. SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

We reviewed a variety of documents which included four people’s care plans and associated risk and individual need assessments. This included ‘pathway tracking’ people living at the service. This is when we looked at people’s care documentation in depth and obtained their views on how they found living at the home. It is an important part of our inspection, as it allowed us to capture information about a sample of people receiving care.

We looked at four staff recruitment files, and records of staff training and supervision. We viewed medicine records and looked at policies and procedures, and systems for recording complaints, accidents and incidents and quality assurance records.

Updated 4 April 2017

Coppice Court Care Home provides facilities and services for up to 54 older people who require personal or nursing care. The ground floor provides nursing care and support for people living with a dementia. The first floor provides care for people whose main nursing needs are related to physical health needs, although many had a dementia or memory loss. This includes people who have had a stroke or lived with a chronic health condition like multiple sclerosis, diabetes or chronic obstructive airways disease. Both floors were able to care for people at the end of their lives and used community specialist support when providing this care. Coppice Court Care Home also provides respite care that includes supporting people while family members are on a break, or to provide additional support to cover an illness. At the time of this inspection 39 people were living in the service 22 on the ground floor and 17 on the first floor.

The service did not have a registered manager in place. The last registered manager left the service in August 2016. 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. At the time of this inspection an acting manager was in post. They had been working in the service for six months.

People’s care plans did not fully reflect people’s care and support needs. Staff did not have clear guidance on how to meet all people’s needs in a person centred way. For example, people with specific care needs did not have these reflected in their care plans with guidelines for staff to follow. The management systems that included quality monitoring did not always ensure safe and best practice was followed in all areas. For example, records relating to topical creams were not always accurate. The provider could not demonstrate that these medicines were always administered in a consistent way.

People were looked after by staff who knew people as individuals. Staff were attentive, and treated people with kindness and compassion. They showed respect and maintained people’s dignity. All feedback received from people and their representatives was very positive about the care, the atmosphere in the service and the approach of the staff and acting manager. One relative who experienced a recent bereavement said, “They were so very caring to my mum and kind to me.”

Feedback from visiting professionals confirmed a good rapport with them and pleasant approach to people.

Staff had a good understanding of safeguarding procedures and knew what actions to take if they believed people were at risk of abuse. Staff understood the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Senior staff had an understanding of DoLS and what may constitute a deprivation of liberty and were following procedures to protect people’s rights.

Staff were provided with a full induction and training programme which provided them with the skills to look after people living in the service. The registered nurses attended additional training to update and ensure their nursing competency. There were enough staff to keep people safe and meet their needs.

People’s nutritional needs were monitored and staff responded appropriately if there were any concerns about a person’s nutritional intake. Preferences and specific diets were accommodated. People were supported to take part in a range of activities and to maintain their own friendships and relationships. Staff related to people as individuals and took an interest in what was important to them.

People were given information on how to make a complaint and said they were comfortable to raise a concern or give feedback. Complaints were investigated and responded to in a positive way. Feedback was regularly sought from people, relatives and staff. People were encouraged to share their views on a daily basis and satisfaction surveys had been completed. The management style fostered in the home was transparent land responded to people and staff’s views.