Archived: Copperfield House

Updated 13 October 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the agency, and to provide a rating for the agency under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 18 September 2018 and was announced. The inspection was carried out by two inspectors.

Before the inspection we reviewed the evidence we had about the home. This included any notifications of significant events, such as serious injuries or safeguarding referrals. Notifications are information about important events which the provider is required to send us by law.

We used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to This enabled us to ensure we were addressing potential areas of concern at our inspection.

As part of our inspection we spoke with two people, two staff and the registered manager (who is also the registered provider). Following the inspection, we carried out telephone interviews with two relatives.

We looked at the care records of seven people, including their assessments, care plans and risk assessments. We looked at records relating to medicines, four staff recruitment files and other records relating to staff support and training. We also checked records used to monitor the quality of the service, such as the provider’s own audits of different aspects of the service.

Updated 13 October 2018

Copperfield House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The home can accommodate up to 16 people with a range of needs including elderly care and dementia. At the time of our inspection nine people were living in the home.

This unannounced inspection took place on 18 September 2018.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the agency. 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 agency is run. The registered manager assisted us with our inspection.

We last inspected this service in February 2018 where we found continued breaches of regulation relating to good governance and infection control. We also identified a breach of regulation in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We found at this inspection the registered manager had worked hard to make significant improvements to the service and has such had met the breaches of regulation.

People’s medicines were managed in a safe way. Risks to people had been considered and information to respond to these risks was in place. There was oversight of accidents and incidents and information relating to these was held appropriately. Staff were aware of their responsibility in relation to safeguarding people from abuse.

People’s needs were assessed before they moved into Copperfield House, however there was a lack of background information on people. We have made a recommendation to the registered provider in this respect. Staff had a good understanding of the MCA and there were no restrictions within the home. Improvements to the paperwork used in relation to capacity assessments had been made, but we have made a recommendation to the registered provider that they should ensure that capacity assessments are decision-specific.

Staff received the training and supervision they should expect and staff went through a recruitment process before commencing work at the home. However, we have recommended the registered provider ensures they are following robust processes when recruiting. Systems were in place to audit and quality assure the care that was being provided. The registered manager had a commitment to improving the service and told us they had learnt from the last inspection and their lack of improvement at that time. The registered manager worked with external agencies and gave people, relatives and staff the opportunity to give their views of the service.

People told us they were cared for by staff who were kind and caring, showed them respect and allowed them to make their own choices. Where people wished to participate in activities outside of their home, staff supported them to do this. Activities within the home suited people and they told us they could participate in them if they wished or spend time participating in their own hobbies if they preferred. When people needed healthcare treatment this was arranged for them by staff.

People told us they liked the food that was provided to them and they were happy with the service they received. They said they were cared for by a sufficient number of staff and we did not see people having to wait for attention. People’s care plans covered all aspects of their care needs and staff knew people’s needs well. No one was receiving end of life care, but the registered manager was working with the local hospice to upskill staff in this aspect.

People were cared for by staff who understood the need to carry out good cleaning processes and staff helped to ensure people were kept safe from harm as health and safety and fire system checks were in place. People knew how to make a complaint but told us they had never felt the need. We read people had complimented staff on the care they received from them.

During our inspection we made three recommendations to the registered provider.