Coppelia House

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people experienced positive outcomes, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 75 (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 made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Records showed people’s physical health and emotional care needs were assessed. The provider’s quality assurance system had identified there were areas for improvement and had an action plan for the registered manager to complete with timescales.

Few people could remember how they moved to Coppelia House, for example the assessment process, but some shared the circumstances, such as a fall at home or an emergency hospital admission. Relatives explained to us how the assessment process worked and their inclusion in meetings and sharing information.

Staff explained the assessment process before people moved to the home. When asked, staff said there was nobody living at the home whose care needs couldn’t be met, or they had concerns about. This showed the registered manager and their team were assessing people appropriately to ensure their physical and emotional care needs could be met at Coppelia House.

People’s changing needs were monitored. At the inspection, the registered manager and the operations manager highlighted how they were reviewing the stay of one person because of the increased high level of staff intervention they required, and the potential impact on others living at the home.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Visitors said staff knew their relatives well and were “…regularlyobserving and, if necessary, intervening with any changes of behaviour or mood. Staff put residents’ health and well-being at the forefront.”

Staff knew people well and were able to identify any changes in people’s wellbeing. When people were acting out of character, staff shared this information with each other to ensure there was a consistent approach. For example, staff shared concerns about a person’s increased anxiety and agreed a sample should be taken to rule out a urine infection.

The provider worked in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice. For example, assessing people’s level of mobility and supplying appropriate equipment to assist them to move safely in line with best practice.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

We asked staff about how they worked together and whether there was good teamwork. Their answers varied; some said there was good support from their colleagues, while others felt there was favouritism and cliques, which caused friction amongst some of the staff team. The feedback from relatives and people living at the service showed this had not impacted on them.

People and their relatives told us the care staff worked well together and provided a good standard of care, although most wished there were more permanent staff and less agency staff who might not know them as well. The registered manager said most agency staff regularly worked at the service so had knowledge of the people they supported.

A daily meeting of staff members from different departments allowed an exchange of information to the benefit of people living at the home, for example people’s dietary needs were discussed. Changes to food preparation or allergies were shared and were typed up for reference. Information was kept in a folder and the chef knew individual requirements well. Senior staff also notified kitchen staff of people’s preferences and dislikes based on the information in people’s care plans. Information was also kept on a whiteboard in the kitchen for easy reference.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Visitors were reassured by the staff team’s diligence to maintain their relative’s health and well-being. For example, one said, “My conversations with staff have shown they have a very good understanding of Mum and know her well.” Another person was pleased an external specialist health professional’s guidance was shared with staff, so their husband was positioned correctly to keep him comfortable and safe. Care records showed staff worked with external health professionals and sought their advice to promote people to lead healthier lives.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured outcomes were positive and consistent, and they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

We saw good communication between care staff which showed they were observing changes in people’s health and wellbeing. The interim deputy manager worked on the floor alongside staff and offered guidance and support when necessary. However, some reviews were not meaningful as they did not pick up on changes elsewhere in the care plan, which the provider said would be addressed.

Visitors were reassured by the staff team’s diligence to maintain their relative’s health and well-being. One told us how they had noticed a positive change in their relative, they said “I have been impressed with her increased levels of energy.It was not long ago that we thought she was giving up.”

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

People said staff were kind in their approach. We saw staff involved people in decision making and took time to listen to them, although some were more skilled than others. Staff were busy but when supporting people or during a group activity, we saw they took time to engage with people, for example to ask their opinion or check they were comfortable or answer their questions.

One person living at the home struggled to appreciate they needed the support of 24 hour care and sometimes tried to leave. We saw how staff recognised when they were becoming restless and provided distractions, such as a walk around the large garden, which the person appeared to enjoy. A mental capacity assessment had been completed and a Deprivation of Liberties Safeguards application appropriately made.

Staff explained how they asked for people’s consent for day to day support and provided examples. Most staff understood the purpose of Deprivation of Liberties Safeguards, and why an application might be submitted. Since the first day of our inspection, security around the front door area had been increased. This was following an incident where a person living with a dementia left the building unaccompanied when they needed the support of staff to keep them safe.

Deprivation of Liberties Safeguards applications had been made for some individuals where appropriate. The registered manager said they alerted the Deprivation of Liberties Safeguards team when applications needed to be reviewed urgently, to ensure the service was operating in a manner which supported people’s legal rights.