You are here

Archived: Coppice House Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 30 April 2015

This inspection took place on 5 March 2015 and was unannounced. Coppice House provides accommodation and personal care for up to eleven people with a learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder. The home comprises of the main house and an adjacent four bedroomed bungalow with a one bedroom annexe attached to it. Most people used the facilities in the main house during the day.

A registered manager was in place as required by their conditions of registration. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

At our previous inspection on 12 August 2014, the provider did not meet all the legal requirements in relation to the care and welfare of people. Following this inspection, the provider sent us an action plan to tell us the improvements they were going to make. During this inspection we looked to see if these improvements had been made. We found that improvements had been made to ensure people were cared for in a personalised way. People’s care and support needs were assessed, monitored and recorded in their care records.

People had complex needs and required a higher level of support and monitoring to ensure their safety. The registered manager and staff understood their role and legal responsibilities in assessing people’s mental capacity and supporting people in the least restrictive way. Risk assessments and guidance was provided to staff on how to support people. Some people required continuous support and were restricted from entering some rooms.

People and staff could raise any concerns or issues about abuse with the team and registered manager. People had been given training on how to recognise and understand the types of abuse. Staff and the registered manager understood their role to protect people from harm and abuse. Systems were in place to protect people from abuse such as daily auditing of people’s finances. Relatives told us that any day to day concerns which they had raised were always dealt with immediately.

People were supported by staff who had been suitably trained and recruited to carry out their role. There were sufficient numbers of skilled staff to meet the needs of the people they supported. Some people required individual support to help them achieve their goals. People who were able to express their views and relatives told us that staff were caring and gave them the support they needed.

People’s care was focused around their individual needs and support requirements. Their care records gave staff guidance on how to support them and reduce the risk of harm especially if they became upset. People were supported to access health care services such as dentists and specialist doctors. Their medicines were ordered, stored and administered in an effective way. Staff knew people’s preferences in food and special diets which were catered for.

Relatives spoke highly of the staff and the registered manager. Staff knew people well and were able to support them effectively in the least restrictive way to take part in activities. There were a wide range of individual and group activities in the home and throughout the community offered to people. People enjoyed meeting up with other people at community events such as discos.

Monitoring systems were in place to ensure the service was operating effectively and safely. Internal and external audits were carried out to continually monitor the service provided. The registered manager was knowledgeable in supporting people to ensure they were protected and safeguarded from harm.

Inspection areas



Updated 30 April 2015

This service was safe. Staff were knowledgeable about their role and responsibilities to protect people from harm and abuse. There were clear policies and procedures in place to give staff guidance on how to report any allegations of abuse. People’s risk of injury and becoming upset had been assessed and recorded. Staff were proactive to support people and reduce individual risks

Staff had been effectively recruited and trained to carry out their role. Staffing levels were suitable and flexible to meet the needs of the people who stayed in the home.

People’s finances and medicines were managed and stored safely.



Updated 30 April 2015

This service was effective. Staff were trained and supported people who had complex needs to carry out their role. Staff understood the importance in providing choice to people and acting in people’s best interests if they did not have the capacity to make specific decisions for themselves. Some people were continuously supported but in the least restrictive way.

People’s health and emotional needs had been assessed and regularly reviewed. Their care was planned, assessed and focused on their individual needs. They were supported to access health care services when needed.

People’s dietary needs and preferences were catered for.



Updated 30 April 2015

The service was caring. Relatives said the staff were caring and compassionate. People were relaxed and calm around staff. They used different methods to communicate with people and adapted their approach accordingly.

People’s privacy, dignity and decisions were respected and valued by staff. They were encouraged to express their choices and preferences about their daily activities.



Updated 30 April 2015

This service was responsive. People received care which was centred around their needs and preferences. People and their relatives had been involved in planning their care. Staff knew people well and were able to offer a choice of activities in the home and the community.

Relatives were able to raise concerns openly with staff and were listened to and acted on. Staff monitored people to ensure their needs were being felt met and to detect if they were unhappy about the support they received.



Updated 30 April 2015

This service was well-led. Staff were supported and encouraged to develop their care skill practices by the registered manager and provider. There were good links between the provider’s managers to share good practices.

Staff demonstrated good care practices and the core values of the organisation.

Quality assurance systems were in place to monitor the quality of care and safety of the home. Systems were in place to report and review any significant incidents to the relevant authorities.