Archived: Copper Beeches

Updated 29 November 2016

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check 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 22 September 2016 and was unannounced.

The inspection team consisted of two inspectors and an Expert-by-Experience. This is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Before the inspection, the provider completed 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 our inspection, we reviewed the PIR and other information we held about the home, which included notifications they had sent us. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to send us by law. We also contacted local authority commissioners of adult social care services and Healthwatch and asked them for their views of the service provided.

We spoke with six people who used the service, four relatives, three members of the care staff, the cook and the registered manager.

We looked at all or parts of the care records and other relevant records of 13 people who used the service, as well as a range of records relating to the running of the service. We also reviewed staff records.

Updated 29 November 2016

We carried out an unannounced inspection of the service on 22 September 2016. Copper Beeches is registered to accommodate up to 20 people who require nursing or personal care. At the time of the inspection there were 18 people using the service.

On the day of our inspection 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.

People were protected from the risk of harm because staff could identify the potential signs of abuse and knew who to report any concerns to. Risks to people’s safety were continually assessed and reviewed. People’s freedom was not unnecessarily restricted. There were enough staff to keep people safe, although some people living at the home felt more staff were needed to support them. People’s medicines were managed safely.

Staff completed an induction prior to commencing their role and staff training was up to date. Staff performance was regularly reviewed to enable them to support people effectively.

The principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005), including Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, had had been followed when decisions were made about people’s care. People were provided with food and drink that met their needs, although the lunchtime experience was made slower due to the electronic menu not working on the day of the inspection. People’s day to day health needs were met by staff. Referrals to relevant health services were made where needed.

Staff understood people’s needs; they showed a genuine interest in what they had to say and were kind, caring and compassionate. People’s privacy and dignity were maintained and staff spoke with them in a respectful way. However, there was one example where a staff member did not respect a person’s privacy. People and/or their relatives were involved with decisions made about their care and were encouraged to lead as independent a life as possible. People were provided with information about how they could access independent advocates. People’s friends and relatives were able to visit whenever they wanted to.

Activities were provided for people who were willing and able to take part. More needed to be done to support people who were less able. People’s care records were person centred and focused on providing them with care and support in the way in which they wanted. People were provided with the information they needed if they wished to make a complaint, however some people felt their complaints were not always dealt with appropriately.

People were encouraged to provide feedback about the quality of the service and this information was used to make improvements where needed. Feedback from questionnaires was positive. Quality assurance processes were in place. Staff enjoyed their job and spoke highly of the registered manager. Staff understood and could explain how they would use the whistleblowing process.