Coppelia House

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 70 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

People said they were happy with how staff treated them, describing them as “kind.” One person said, “I feel at home. I like the atmosphere.” We saw people initiated hugs with staff who responded affectionately. People looked relaxed and happy with staff, and generally with one another. Two people with the same first name laughed together about being in a gang. A relative said, “She’s always cheerful when I visit.”

People were encouraged to express their personalities through their personalised rooms. This provided an insight into people’s interests and past lives, such as fashion magazines or photographs. People told us they enjoyed the views and the space.

Visitors were confident the staff grouptreated their relatives with kindness; one said, “Mum's needs havealways been met with compassion.”

We saw how staff maintained people’s dignity when they used equipment to assist people to move, for example making sure their clothes did not ride up to expose them.

Staff knew people and understood their personal preferences. One person loved dancing and live music; a staff member danced with them in a natural way without embarrassment, acknowledging the person’s happiness.

The culture of the service meant staff treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met their individual needs and preferences. A staff member said the service provided “compassionate, person-centred care and fosters a warm homely friendship.” This approach was confirmed by other staff responses to our questions, and from our observations of their interactions with people and visitors. Staff recognised visitors needed support too. A relative said the staff group had a lovely rapport with visitors and took time to reassure them and check on their well-being.

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

The culture of the service meant staff treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met their individual needs and preferences. A staff member said the service provided “compassionate, person-centred care and fosters a warm homely friendship.” This approach was confirmed by other staff responses to our questions, and from our observations of their interactions with people and visitors. Staff recognised visitors needed support too. A relative said the staff group had a lovely rapport with visitors and took time to reassure them and check on their well-being.

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

People’s comments about their experience at Coppelia House showed they had choice and control over their daily lives, which reflected our observations of people being supported to make decisions. We saw how staff skilfully supported people to eat their meal at lunchtime. They did not rush people; they told them what was on their plate or the fork. They checked if people wanted more or needed a drink between bites. People chose to eat in whatever way felt comfortable to them, and staff did not draw attention to this, as they recognised it was more important for people to feel in control and for them to eat well.

Staff told us how they involved people in decisions around their care and gave examples. One staff member said it was important to give people space and not rush them so they could focus on what they wanted to say.

The ethos of the service promoted people’s independence. When people were being assessed, their preferences were recorded in their care plan, and staff interactions showed they knew people’s likes and dislikes well.

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

People said staff listened to them. They had accessible call bells to alert staff when they needed help. Some said they had to wait a little while at busy times, but they understood staff were doing their best. During our inspection, there were several times when an emergency call bell went off; staff responded quickly, and calmly reassured people when they arrived at their room

Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. One person’s anxiety quickly accelerated due to feeling overwhelmed in a communal area. A staff member was instantly reassuring, checking if they wanted to leave the lounge and as they walked told them it was alright as it was just the two of them now. A staff member said if they saw a deterioration in a person’s mood, they would “Listen to them without judgement…I will ask what I need to help them…I will reassure…I will avoid confrontation.”

The provider did not consistently promote the wellbeing of their staff. However, they did support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

We sent a questionnaire to staff and received 20 responses. The staff group who responded to our questionnaire, included their thoughts on working as a team and whether they felt supported by the registered manager. Their responses were very mixed. Some said they would recommend the home as a good place to work. Other staff said the registered manager had been very supportive and accommodating. In contrast, others felt there was a disconnect between the staff group and the registered manager, and did not feel valued. A few people said there was discontent between the care staff with unfair favouritism for certain staff members; while another said they enjoyed their job but felt they were an “outsider” in the team.