Coppelia House

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant the service was consistently monitored with a culture to promote high-quality, person-centred care.

This service scored 71 (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 had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

The registered manager told us they had been working on making the culture of the home more person centred. For example, encouraging staff to prepare breakfasts, such as cereal and toast, at the time people requested food rather than waiting for when the kitchen staff arrived. She said there had been some resistance from some staff about the changes she had introduced, and as result, in her view, some staff had chosen to leave.

The quality assurance team were working alongside the training team to ensure all staff at Coppelia House had access to paid training, with transport provided to enable staff to get to the central training hub.

Not all leaders understood the context in which the provider delivered care, treatment and support. Leaders did not always have the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively, or they did not always do so with integrity, openness and honesty.

The provider recognised there had been changes within the home which had led to some staff feeling unsettled but were also keen to implement positive changes to the culture of the home for the benefit of people living there.

The registered manager said they had experienced resistance from some members of the staff group to the introduction of more person centred practice. Some staff said they had raised concerns with the quality assurance team about how the home was being run. They said areas for improvement included professional boundaries and how the registered manager communicated with staff.

After we visited the service, the provider updated us on changes to the leadership of the home, the registered manager was no longer working at the service. The provider told us how the home would be managed until a new manager was recruited.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

Staff from the provider’s quality assurance team visited frequently to check on the progress of the home’s action plan, and provided additional support, for example further training in the provider’s management systems. The provider’s management team was also responding to feedback from staff regarding professional boundaries and management style of communication.

The staff group said they worked well together and there was generally good teamwork. Some said they would appreciate being managed within the home in a more professional, fairer and supportive style. We shared this information with the provider, who has confirmed this feedback had been acted upon. Information sent to us confirmed their actions.

The provider said due to confidentiality issues, action taken to address the concerns could not always be shared directly with staff. Part of the action plan had been the transfer of an additional staff member from another home within the group to add another layer to the leadership of the home.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

There was a positive friendly atmosphere, where staff worked together to make sure everyone felt included in conversations or activities. Staff were varied in their responses as to whether they felt the same good practice featured in how they were supported to do their job. A member of the quality assurance team said they met regularly with staff and listened to feedback, which was shared with the provider and concerns discussed with the registered manager. There was an action plan in place.

Some staff did not feel their concerns had been effectively acted upon by the provider and shared their concerns with CQC prior to the unannounced inspection. The anonymous concerns had been investigated, and the provider said few had been fully substantiated.

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate.

Since their last inspection, the provider had instigated some major changes in the structure of the organisation and was embedding new systems and roles to enhance their quality assurance and oversight of the home. This was still under development but had been used to spot potential risks in the management of the service and for individuals living at the home. As part of the governance arrangements there was an action plan with a deadline for improvement which was regularly monitored by the provider’s management team to check on progress and the level of risk. For example, the provider’s quality assurance processes had identified staff at Coppelia House were not always being released to attend training. The provider had taken steps to resolve this issue.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.

The registered manager described links within the town and growing the role of the home in the local community. For example, participating in the Care Home Open Week. The registered manager arranged for local musicians from a range of musical styles to perform at the home over the week. This is a national event to celebrate the work of care homes and welcome the local community into the home.

Photos showed people living at the home and visitors participating in events, where cream teas, summer alcoholic drinks and ice lollies were served. The aim of the event was to break down barriers between people living in care homes and the local neighbourhood, as well as challenging negative stereotypes about the experience of people living in a care home. People and relatives told us how much they enjoyed the music.

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contributed to safe, effective practice and research.

The provider oversaw the governance arrangements to ensure the home was well run. Training was provided centrally to enable staff to focus and benefit from mixing with staff from the provider’s other homes. The provider had invested in improvements to staff training, which was centralised, allowing for better oversight of how many staff had completed training and where there were knowledge gaps which needed to be addressed.

The investment in new systems to create improved quality assurance processes and care planning was still work in progress. The provider worked alongside system developers to request changes and updates to make care information more accessible and easier to monitor. Audits were completed on a regular basis as part of monitoring the service provided. This helped to identify areas for improvement and the progress of action plans.