Background to this inspection
Updated
22 April 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 over two days, on 9 and 16 February 2016. The first day was unannounced; the second day was by arrangement.
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.
We also reviewed all the information we held about the home, including previous inspection reports and statutory notifications. We contacted the local authority and Healthwatch. We were not made aware of any concerns by the local authority. Healthwatch feedback stated they had no comments or concerns. Healthwatch is an independent consumer champion that gathers and represents the views of the public about health and social care services in England. We also contacted health and social care professionals who were familiar with the service, no concerns were raised by them.
At the time of our inspection there were 103 people living at the service. During our visit we spoke with 12 people who used the service, 10 visitors, 21 members of staff, the registered manager, the area manager, the clinical services manager, the head of care and the area trainer. We spent some time looking at documents and records related to people’s care and the management of the service. We looked at 13 people’s care records and 19 people’s medication records.
The inspection was carried out on the first day by four adult social care inspectors, an inspection manager, a specialist advisor in governance, a specialist advisor in dementia and a pharmacist specialist. On the second day of the inspection one adult social care inspector returned to the service to complete the inspection.
Updated
22 April 2016
The inspection took place over two days, on 9 and 16 February 2016. The first day was unannounced, which meant the service did not know in advance we were coming. The second day was by arrangement.
At the last inspection in August 2015 we found the provider had breached one regulation associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008. This was in relation to medicines administration.
We told the provider they needed to take action and we received a report in September 2015 setting out the action they would take to meet the regulations. At this inspection we found the service had followed their action plan and improvements had been made with regard to this breach.
Copper Hill is a large home, spread across six separate units located on the outskirts of Leeds city centre. It provides residential services, nursing care services and dementia care services for a maximum of 180 people.
There was a registered manager in post. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
At this inspection we found two breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. Accurate and up to date records in relation to people’s care and treatment were not always maintained. Health care and treatment of people who used the service did not always meet their assessed needs and people were not consistently provided with meaningful and stimulating activity. You can see what action we told the registered persons to take in relation to each of these breaches of the regulations at the end of the full version of this report.
Overall, people said there were enough staff to meet their or their family member’s needs. However, we noted that at times, people who used the service had to wait for periods of time for the support they needed such as assistance with meals.
There were systems in place to record accidents and incidents and monitor for any patterns or trends. However, we found on one unit two incident reports that had not been completed in full or followed up to show what action was taken in response to them.
The premises and equipment were well maintained to ensure people’s safety. However, improvements to the environment were needed to assist people who lived with dementia to promote their freedom and independence.
People told us they felt safe and well looked after at the home. Staff had a good understanding of safeguarding vulnerable adults and knew what to do to keep people safe. Staff were recruited appropriately in order to ensure they were suitable to work within the home. They were provided with training to develop their knowledge and skills. However, not all staff were able to demonstrate their knowledge and skills in how to support people living with dementia.
There were policies and procedures in place in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Staff were trained in the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005), and could describe how people were supported to make decisions; and where people did not have the capacity; decisions were, in the main, made in their best interests.
People were supported by staff who treated them with kindness and were respectful of their privacy and dignity. Overall, their choices and preferences were respected and they were supported to make their own decisions whenever they could do so.
People told us they enjoyed the food and got the support they needed with meals. However, some improvements were needed to ensure the meal time experience was positive for all people who used the service.
There were systems in place to ensure complaints and concerns were fully investigated. People had the opportunity to say what they thought about the service and the feedback gave the provider an opportunity for learning and improvement.
People were not put at risk because systems for monitoring quality were effective. Where improvements were needed, these were addressed and followed up to ensure continuous improvement.
The registered manager was supportive of people who lived in the home and the staff who worked there. They listened to what people had to say and took action to address any issues they had.