You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 26 October 2017

We carried out a comprehensive inspection of Copper Beeches Lodge on 12 September 2017. At the previous inspection the service was rated good.

Copper Beeches Lodge provides accommodation and personal care for up to thirteen people who have a learning disability. During this inspection thirteen people were living at the service.

The service is situated close to the centre of St Austell. Most people living at Copper Beeches Lodge were mobile but some required mobility aids to support them. Some people using the service were supported to use community facilities.

There were two managers registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). On the day of the inspection one of those managers was on duty. The service had experienced staff recruitment issues prior to this inspection. This meant the registered managers were supporting staff members in the delivery of care to people. This had affected some of the management systems including training of new staff members. The service was fully staffed at this inspection and the registered managers had put training dates in place so staff would receive the necessary support to carry out their roles effectively. We have made a recommendation about this issue.

The service was clean, spacious and generally suitable for the people who used the service. However one window did not have a restrictor in place. This was being acted upon once the registered manager was informed. There was limited access to the garden area where people who required mobility aids due to uneven paths. Other health and safety checks had been carried out by the registered managers.

People's safety and well-being had been assessed by the registered manager and risk assessments were in place to minimise any risks and keep them safe. These had been kept under review and were relevant to the care and support people required. Visiting professionals told us the service was very responsive to any changes. They said, “If staff have any doubts or concerns they let us know so we can respond to the changes.”

Accidents and incidents were appropriately recorded and acted upon if required. The registered managers understood their responsibilities with regard to safeguarding and staff had been trained in safeguarding vulnerable adults.

Appropriate arrangements were in place for the administration and storage of medicines.

There had been problems in recruiting staff during the early part of the year. This had led to registered managers supporting staff on duty. Recent recruitment had increased staffing levels. There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty in order to meet the needs of people who used the service. The registered managers had an effective recruitment and selection procedure in place and carried out relevant checks when they employed staff.

People had their healthcare needs met and there were examples of how people's health needs had been effectively responded to. People were treated with dignity and respect and independence was promoted wherever possible.

The registered provider was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and was following the requirements in the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible.

People were protected from the risk of poor nutrition and staff were aware of people's nutritional needs. Care records contained evidence of visits to and from external health care specialists.

People were able to do things they enjoyed and keep in touch with those people who were important to them.

People and relatives knew how to raise any complaints they had and were confident staff would take action if this happened.

Checks were undertaken on the quality of the care by the registered manager through regular communication and by seeking the views of people using the service and their relatives.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 26 October 2017

The service remains good.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 26 October 2017

The service was not completely effective. Some staff had not received sufficient training in order to carry out their roles. We have made a recommendation about this.

Not all people living at the service could access the garden area.

Caring

Good

Updated 26 October 2017

The service remains good.

Responsive

Good

Updated 26 October 2017

The service remains good.

Well-led

Good

Updated 26 October 2017

The service remains good.