We carried out a review of the data available to us about New Copford Place Residential Care Home on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about New Copford Place Residential Care Home, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
The provider had increased cleaning in the service, including sanitising high touch areas on a regular basis.
The provider had implemented virtual infection prevention and control training for staff when COVID-19 restrictions prevented face to face training taking place. Staff were supported by a trainer in small, socially distanced training groups via a video link.
People were supported to maintain regular contact with friends and family throughout the pandemic. If relatives were unable to visit in person, people were encouraged to stay in touch through frequent phone and video calls.
At the last inspection in February 2016 the service was rated Good overall. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.
Why the service is rated Good.
The people who lived in New Copford Place were provided with high quality; caring support which was person centred and met their individual needs. Comments from people who lived in New Copford Place included; "This is truly a wonderful place. The food is good, it is clean and the gardens are well maintained” and "The staff are genuinely caring, they cannot do enough for you. We are like family.”
Since our last inspection the registered manager has retired and a new manager had been in post for three months. The new manager had applied to be registered and was shortly due to attend their fit persons interview.
People said they were safe and had no concerns about the care and treatment they received. Staff were trained in adult safeguarding procedures and knew what to do if they considered people were at risk of harm or if they needed to report any suspected abuse.
Effective recruitment processes in place to reduced the risk of unsuitable staff being employed. There were enough staff available to provide care and support. Training and supervision systems provided staff with the knowledge and skills they needed to meet people’s needs.
People's nutritional needs were met and people were supported to have enough to eat and drink. A range of external health and social care professionals worked with the staff team to support people to maintain their health and well-being.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.
Care plans were personalised and gave staff guidance on the care each person needed. People and their relatives were involved in planning their care. People were encouraged to participate in a range of varied group and personalised activities and interests of their choice with good links to the local community.
People and relatives spoke positively about the leadership skills of the new manager and told us it was well led. A number of audits and checks were used to ensure the effectiveness, safety and quality of the service.
People and their relatives were given opportunities, such as meetings and annual satisfaction surveys to give their views about the service and comment on how it could be improved. However, we recommended that senior management quality audits also include in assessing the views of people, their family, friends and staff.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
This inspection took place on the 10 February 2016 and was unannounced.
The service is a residential care home for older people which provides accommodation and personal care support for up to 27 people. There were 27 people living at the service on the day of our inspection.
There was no registered manager. A manager had recently been employed who was in the process of submitting their application to register with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). 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 felt included in the planning of their care and listened to by staff. They told us staff were responsive to their needs at all times of the day and night. People’s decisions were respected and their dignity promoted.
There were safe systems in place in the management of people’s medicines. This included regular audits to ensure people received their medicines as prescribed.
Staff knew how to keep people safe from the risk of abuse as they had been trained and knew what to do if they had concerns. They could identify when people were at risk of abuse and what action to take to protect people from the risk of harm.
Staff were kind, caring and promoted people’s privacy. People’s dignity was respected when staff supported them with personal care. Systems were in place to support people in the planning of meals and menus. The service routinely listened and learnt from people’s experiences. Concerns and complaints were responded to in a timely manner.
Care support was assessed according to individual needs in the planning of opportunities to pursue people’s social interests. Opportunities had been provided for people to access the local community. The planning of group activities were varied according to expressed need, wishes and choices.
The service demonstrated a positive culture that was person centred, open, inclusive and empowering of people. The atmosphere was friendly with evidence of positive team working. There were good relationships between staff, the people they supported and visiting relatives and friends. Morale amongst staff had been low with the changes in management but was improving since the recent employment of a new manager. Everyone was complimentary regarding the leadership style of the new manager.
This is a summary of what we found:
Is the service safe:
When we arrived at the service we gained access via a locked front door. We signed in using the visitors book. We saw that there was a building alarm which alerted staff if any of the outer doors were opened at night. This meant that the appropriate actions were taken to ensure that the people who used the service were protected from others who did not have the right to access their home.
We saw that staff were provided with training in safeguarding vulnerable adults from abuse, Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff we spoke with were able to describe the actions they would take if they suspected abuse.
The service was safe. We saw records which showed that health and safety checks were carried out regularly. This included regular water temperature checks which meant that people were protected from the risk of legionella.
Is the service effective?
People told us they felt that they were provided with a service that met their needs. One person said, "I get treated very well." A relative told us, "They have gone far beyond the call, my (relative) would have been in hospital if it had not been for the care they provide."
People's care records showed that care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. The records were regularly reviewed and updated which meant that staff were provided with up to date information about how people's needs were to be met.
Is the service caring?
We saw that staff interacted with people living in the service in a caring respectful and professional manner. People told us that staff treated them with respect. One person told us, "They are very kind to me."
We observed staff treating people with compassion and patience when the activities of daily living proved challenging.
Is the service responsive?
People's care records showed that where concerns about their well being had been identified the staff had taken appropriate action to ensure that people were provided with the support they needed. This included seeking support and guidance from health care professions including a general practitioner, district nurses, dietician and physiotherapist.
People using the service were provided with the opportunity to participate in activities which interested them. People's choices were taken in to account and listened to.
Is the service well-led?
Staff we spoke with were enthusiastic about working in the service. They felt senior members of staff were approachable and worked well with them to provide high quality care. Staff were supported to gain relevant qualifications to help them meet people's needs. We saw that the provider visited the service regularly to assess the quality of care.
We found that the service had appropriate arrangements in place for obtaining consent to care. We saw that people had been consulted in the consent to their care. Where appropriate the service had mental capacity assessments in place for people in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
We found that the care plans were well formulated and were specific to people's individual needs. This meant that people were protected from the risk of inappropriate care or treatment.
We found that there was a sufficient number of staff on duty to meet the dependency needs of people. We also found that the service had appropriate arrangements in place for the recruitment of staff suitable to their roles.
We found that the service had arrangements in place for the management of complaints. We saw that complaints were responded to in a timely and appropriate manner.
People told us they liked the service. One person said, "It feels homely" and "The food is home cooked and always good.' People told us that the menu was varied and that they could decide what they preferred to eat.One person told us that they had been able to discuss their care plan and that they were happy with the level of care provided.
We found some gaps in the written care plans which meant that some were not accurate. This meant that the risk to people's welfare had not been correctly assessed, which meant people may have been at risk of developing avoidable conditions. We found that the dependency of people meant that the number of staff provided to deliver care during the morning period did not meet the needs of people who used the service.