We carried out a review of the data available to us about Copper Beech Care Home 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 Copper Beech Care Home, you can give feedback on this service.
The home was clean and tidy with a dedicated team of housekeeping and laundry staff. Cleaning schedules and daily cleaning tasks were documented when completed. Staff used green paper tags which were attached to door handles and equipment. These were signed, dated and timed to indicate when the area or item was last cleaned. Attention was paid to regular cleaning of high touch areas around the home. Safe laundry procedures were being followed.
Staff had completed Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) training. Regular competency checks had been completed to ensure staff continued to follow IPC guidance.
Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) was available and staff were seen to be wearing and disposing of PPE appropriately. PPE stations were located around the building and staff had access to extra supplies if needed. Barrier nursing was taking place when people had been required to isolate in their rooms.
People’s needs and wellbeing were reviewed regularly and decisions around safe visiting made on an individualised basis.
COVID19 specific risk assessments had been completed for people when required. Staff supported people to remain safe without placing undue restrictions on them.
The provider was following latest government guidance around admissions to the home.
People’s experience of using this service:
People told us they felt safe living at Copper Beech Care Home and that they liked living there. A relative told us, "We could never have found a better more caring Nursing Home for [our loved one] to spend their final weeks of life. It is reassuring and provides us with peace of mind knowing they are being so well cared for".
There was a relaxed and homely atmosphere and people and staff enjoyed each other’s company.
People were protected from the risks of harm and discrimination by staff who were trained to recognise the signs of abuse.
People were supported by enough staff who continued to be recruited safely.
People were empowered to continue to make their own decision about the level of care they received. They were supported to have maximum choice and control over their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. Policies and systems in the service supported this.
People told us there was plenty to keep them occupied throughout the day.
People’s health and welfare were monitored, and staff worked with health care professionals to make sure people stayed as healthy as possible.
The service was well-led. The registered manager led by example. Management and staff worked cohesively, promoting an open and transparent culture where everyone’s views were important.
Checks and audits were effective and identified shortfalls. Action was taken to use this to improve the quality of service.
Rating at last inspection: At the last inspection on 12 October 2016 the service was rated Good overall. (Published 25 November 2016).
Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection.
The service met the characteristics of Good in all areas and Good overall. For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If concerning information is received, we may inspect sooner.
There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 were safeguarded from harm as the provider had systems in place to prevent, recognise and report concerns to the relevant authorities. Senior staff and nurses knew their responsibilities as defined by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and had applied that knowledge appropriately.
There were sufficient numbers of experienced staff that were supported to carry out their roles to meet the assessed needs of people living at the home. Staff received training in areas that enabled them to understand and meet the care needs of each person. Recruitment procedures protected people from receiving unsafe care from care staff unsuited to the role.
People’s care and support needs were continually monitored and reviewed to ensure that care was
provided in the way that they needed. People had been involved in planning and reviewing their care when they wanted to.
People were supported to have sufficient to eat and drink to maintain a balanced diet. Staff monitored people’s health and well-being and ensured people had access to healthcare professionals when required.
Staff understood the importance of obtaining people’s consent when supporting them with their daily living needs. People experienced caring relationships with staff, who provided good interaction by taking the time to listen and understand what people needed.
People’s needs were met in line with their individual care plans and assessed needs. Staff took time to get to know people and ensured that people’s care was tailored to their individual needs.
People had the information they needed to make a complaint and the service had processes in place to respond to any complaints.
People were supported by a team of staff that had the managerial guidance and support they needed to carry out their roles. The quality of the service was monitored by the audits regularly carried out by the manager and by the provider.
We spoke with four members of staff who told us they feel confident in their role. They said that they have regular training and feel very supported by the manager. During our observation we saw that staff interacted well with people when they were supporting them.
We were shown examples of person centred care records which were well organised into separate sections. This provided clarity for staff. These had been developed for each individual and documented their wishes and preferences in relation to how their care was provided. A relative's assistance was sought with this where the person was unable to fully contribute themselves.
Equality and diversity had been considered in the service by looking at each individual's needs. Any equipment or adaptations needed were provided.
We found that people's privacy, dignity and independence had been respected. People who lived at the home and their relative's views and experiences had been taken into account and people received their care in the way they preferred.
People's needs had been met. People's needs had been assessed and kept under review. Health care professional's advice and support had been obtained when needed.
One visitor told us they were "Intensely impressed with the management of the home and the balance between the high standard of clinical care and the relaxed friendly atmosphere".
One person who lived there told us 'it's very amenable living here.' Another summed up their experience as '100% everything".
People felt safe and secure. Staff had received training in the protection of safeguarding adults at risk and were aware of how to raise an alert if they suspected abuse had taken place.
Staff had received the training and support they needed to undertake their role and meet the diverse needs of the people who lived there.
We found that the home had regularly assessed and monitored the quality of service that people received. They had identified, assessed and managed any risks to health, safety and welfare.