Copthorne Complete Home Care Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

People did not always receive personalised care which met their changing needs and reflected their choices. People's diverse needs were not respected or planned for. Information was not provided to people in an accessible way when needed. However, people were happy with the care they received and were confident to raise concerns or complaints about their care.

This service scored 32 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Relatives felt staff supported their family members in a way which met their needs and wishes.

Staff referred to the registered manager or the person’s family to find out how they needed to support people, they did not mention they would involve the person in discussions about their own care. Staff did not have the information to understand people’s specific needs, routines and preferences. Key information was missing from people’s care plans to help guide staff to provide person-centred care. One person’s care plan stated they must follow a specific routine but did not explain what the routine was. This put people at risk of receiving personal care which was not individual to their needs or personal preferences.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

The provider did not have processes in place to provide information to people in a way which was accessible to them. People’s care records had little information on how staff could effectively engage with them or present information in a way they could understand. Peoples’ care plans contained generic information which did not reflect their specific needs. One person’s care plan stated for staff to be aware of sign language and Makaton, which are 2 forms of communication, as this was how they communicated. However, this information was incorrect. The registered manager told us they used a generic communication care plan which had this information already recorded in, but it was not relevant to anyone who they supported. This lack of person centered care planning placed people at risk of being excluded from making informed decisions about their care because staff were not given the information to effectively engage or communicate with them.

Relatives were happy to contact the registered manager if they had any concerns. However, they could not recall if they had received a written complaints policy or if there was a formal process.

The service had a complaints policy and procedure. Staff were encouraged to direct people who used the service and their relatives to make complaints to the registered manager if necessary.

The provider had processes in place to monitor complaints and to confirm they had been dealt with to the person’s satisfaction. We saw where one person had raised a complaint, feedback had been given to the person and their family.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in experiences and outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.