We carried out a review of the data available to us about Copthorne Lodge 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 Copthorne Lodge, you can give feedback on this service.
Copthorne Lodge provides personal care and support to people living in an extra
care scheme with some shared facilities. At the time of the inspection the service was supporting 18 people in their own flats. The service supports primarily older people within individual flats. Six of the flats provide short term reablement people requiring support to regain their independence.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
The registered manager and assistant manager were extremely passionate about the service and making it the best it could be for people using it. The commitment of the management team and staff to driving up the quality of the service was clear. This was demonstrated through the volume of positive comments we received about the service everyone we spoke with was exceptionally positive about how the service was delivered.
People were genuinely at the centre of how the service was run. The committee was empowering people to shape how the service was delivered and provide opportunities for leisure activities to help reduce social isolation.
The management team and staff were committed to delivering care which was rooted in bet practice. The commitment of the staff champions to drive improvement and their success in achieving sustained results with accreditation schemes ensured people had a safe, effective and good quality service.
The service had a strong learning culture and worked in partnership very well with other professionals. People had achieved their goals and had positive outcomes from the partnership working and staff really benefitted from the support available and learning opportunities.
People were supported to manage risks to their safety and were supported by staff that understood how to recognise the signs of abuse. People were supported by enough staff that had been safely recruited. People had support to manage their medicines and received these safely. People were protected from the risk of cross infection. Where incidents and accidents had happened, these were analysed and learning was put in place.
People had their needs assessed and were involved in developing their care plans. Assessments and care plan’s involved other professionals and used best practice approaches. Staff had an induction to their role and received regular updates to training. Staff had reflective supervisions and were supported to access development opportunities.
People were supported to understand their dietary needs and had plans which reflected their individual needs and preferences. People received consistent support from staff who worked well with other professionals. Where people had health conditions staff were aware of these and had guidance in place to meet them. Referrals to health professionals were prompt and any advice was followed by staff.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People were supported by staff that were caring. Staff knew people well and had developed good relationships. People were in control of their lives and made decisions about their care and support. People were respected and their privacy was maintained by staff.
People were receiving person centred care and support. People had their preferences understood and were supported to communicate in their preferred way. Staff supported people to engage in activities and were engaged with relatives and visitors to the service. There was a clear system in place to manage any complaints and people told us they felt these would be addressed.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published 3 July 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
At the last inspection in March 2015, the service was rated as Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.
There was a registered manager in place. 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 continued to receive care and support from staff who understood how to keep them safe. Staff were available to meet people’s needs and understood how to best support people and the risks to their health. Staff understood how to protect people from abuse and were clear about the steps they would need to take if they suspected someone was unsafe. People were supported by staff to have their medicines as prescribed and checks were made to ensure staff supported people with their medicines appropriately.
The service continued to be effective. Staff said training helped them do their job and gave them the right skills to meet the needs of the people they supported. They were supported by the management team through regular supervisions and staff meetings. Staff understood they could only care for and support people who consented to being cared for. People enjoyed choices in the meals and drinks they were offered and told us staff responded when they were unwell and staff arranged health appointments on their behalf if they asked.
The service remained caring towards people. People said staff were caring and treated them with dignity and respect. People were involved in how their care and support was received; they were given choices and said their wishes were respected by staff.
The service remained responsive. People received care that met their needs. Staff provided care that took account of people’s individual needs and preferences and offered people choices. People said staff listened to them and they felt confident they could raise any issues should the need arise and action would be taken.
The service remained well led. Staff felt supported by the management team to provide good care. The registered manager and provider had systems in place to review and update people’s care and to assure themselves of the quality of care being delivered. Where areas had been identified for improvement, actions had been taken.
Further information is in the detailed findings below
Copthorne Lodge provides housing with care. The unit consists of 30 flats, four of which are double occupancy. People live in their own home and have a tenancy agreement with Whitefriars Housing. Staff provide personal care and support to people at pre-arranged times and in emergencies. At the time of our visit 25 people used the service.
We inspected Copthorne Lodge on 31 March 2015. The inspection was announced so people could give consent for us to visit them in their flats to talk with them.
The service had a registered manager. 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 told us they felt safe at Copthorne Lodge. Staff were trained in safeguarding and understood the action they should take if they had any concerns people were at risk of harm. There were processes to minimise risks to people’s safety; these included procedures to manage identified risks with people’s care and for managing people’s medicines. Staff understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and knew they could only provide care and support to people who had given their consent.
Staff received training in areas considered essential to meet people’s care and support needs safely and consistently. People told us they received care from a regular team of staff who understood their likes, dislikes and preferences. There were enough suitably trained staff to meet people’s individual support needs. People told us the care staff were kind, caring and respected their privacy, dignity and independence.
Care plans and risk assessments contained relevant information for staff to help them provide the personalised care people required. Care plans were updated regularly and people and their relatives had been involved in reviews. Staff referred people to other health professionals when their health needs changed and supported people to follow the health professionals’ advice.
People were encouraged to share their views and opinions about the quality of the service and all the people we spoke with were happy with the service they received. People knew how to complain and information about making a complaint was available for people. Staff were confident they could raise any concerns or issues with the managers and this would be listened to and acted on.
There were processes to monitor the quality of the service provided and understand the experiences of people who used the service. This was through direct feedback from people, returned surveys, tenant and staff meetings and a programme of checks and audits.
We looked at the care records of three people who used the service. We were satisfied people were receiving the care they had consented to. We found care plans provided staff with sufficient information about people's support needs and how staff were to provide support safely. We found staff supported people to maintain independence. One person told us, 'I do everything for myself other than my medication. I like to be independent; the staff respects my wishes and don't interfere.' People spoke positively about the care provided. One person said, "All the staff are very friendly. I feel very fortunate to live here, its lovely.'
We looked at medication management and the recruitment procedure. We found people received their medication at the times prescribed. There were processes in place to safely recruit staff and provide staff with the training and support to meet people's needs.
We looked at how complaints were managed. There was clear information for people about how to make a complaint. People we spoke with said they had no need to complain about the service but would speak to someone if they needed to.
We asked the provider to send CQC a report to say what action they were going to take to achieve compliance with this essential standard. The report told us, 'Following CQC inspection all areas of concern were immediately addressed and rectified.'
We visited Copthorne Lodge again on 14 June 2012 to review the improvements made to the management of pressure area care. We did not talk to people who use the service during this follow up visit. Peoples experience of the service can be found in the report dated 11 April 12.
We requested to see the care files for the two people where concerns had been identified on our last visit. We found that risk assessments had been completed for pressure area management. This information had also been recorded in their care support plans. We saw from records we looked at that staff were checking pressure areas and reported concerns to the senior staff on duty. The senior staff then referred this to the district nurse.
We looked at the call schedules for the two clients whose pressure area care we were looking into. We found that the information on schedules was not detailed in relation to what staff should do to manage pressure care. We asked a member of staff about pressure area management for one of the people concerned. We were told that she knew the client well and that staff always checked pressure areas during personal care routines. The senior carer who supported our visit added the additional information required to the call schedules. This should ensure any staff not familiar with the people who use the service will have sufficient information about how to manage individual's pressure area care.
We found that people were now having their pressure area care managed and monitored to ensure their welfare and safety.
People we spoke with told us that staff were polite and treated them with respect. We were told carers were helpful and friendly. One person said 'I couldn't wish for better staff'. Staff we spoke with said they encouraged people to maintain their independence. One staff member said 'We always encourage tenants to do things for themselves wherever possible.'
The files we looked at contained care plans and risk assessments. Plans we looked at provided staff with sufficient information about the care support required. We saw that assessments and support plans were being reviewed and updated as needed. We found that pressure area management should be improved to make sure people remain safe and well.
We looked at a sample of staff work schedules. These showed calls are allocated consistently and that staff were given sufficient time to carry out all the tasks required. One person said "All the carers here are really good they always make sure I have everything I need before they leave'.
Staff we spoke with knew what they would do to keep people safe. Staff spoken with knew about the whistle blowing procedure and said that they would have no hesitation reporting poor practice to the office. Staff we spoke with said they had regular training and felt well supported to do their job.
People we spoke with said they were asked for their views and opinions of the service. People told us that they would talk to the managers if they were unhappy about anything. Care staff we spoke with said they had confidence that any concerns they reported to the staff in the office would be dealt with promptly.