You are here

Archived: Coppice Court Care Home Requires improvement

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 4 April 2017

Coppice Court Care Home provides facilities and services for up to 54 older people who require personal or nursing care. The ground floor provides nursing care and support for people living with a dementia. The first floor provides care for people whose main nursing needs are related to physical health needs, although many had a dementia or memory loss. This includes people who have had a stroke or lived with a chronic health condition like multiple sclerosis, diabetes or chronic obstructive airways disease. Both floors were able to care for people at the end of their lives and used community specialist support when providing this care. Coppice Court Care Home also provides respite care that includes supporting people while family members are on a break, or to provide additional support to cover an illness. At the time of this inspection 39 people were living in the service 22 on the ground floor and 17 on the first floor.

The service did not have a registered manager in place. The last registered manager left the service in August 2016. 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. At the time of this inspection an acting manager was in post. They had been working in the service for six months.

People’s care plans did not fully reflect people’s care and support needs. Staff did not have clear guidance on how to meet all people’s needs in a person centred way. For example, people with specific care needs did not have these reflected in their care plans with guidelines for staff to follow. The management systems that included quality monitoring did not always ensure safe and best practice was followed in all areas. For example, records relating to topical creams were not always accurate. The provider could not demonstrate that these medicines were always administered in a consistent way.

People were looked after by staff who knew people as individuals. Staff were attentive, and treated people with kindness and compassion. They showed respect and maintained people’s dignity. All feedback received from people and their representatives was very positive about the care, the atmosphere in the service and the approach of the staff and acting manager. One relative who experienced a recent bereavement said, “They were so very caring to my mum and kind to me.”

Feedback from visiting professionals confirmed a good rapport with them and pleasant approach to people.

Staff had a good understanding of safeguarding procedures and knew what actions to take if they believed people were at risk of abuse. Staff understood the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Senior staff had an understanding of DoLS and what may constitute a deprivation of liberty and were following procedures to protect people’s rights.

Staff were provided with a full induction and training programme which provided them with the skills to look after people living in the service. The registered nurses attended additional training to update and ensure their nursing competency. There were enough staff to keep people safe and meet their needs.

People’s nutritional needs were monitored and staff responded appropriately if there were any concerns about a person’s nutritional intake. Preferences and specific diets were accommodated. People were supported to take part in a range of activities and to maintain their own friendships and relationships. Staff related to people as individuals and took an interest in what was important to them.

People were given information on how to make a complaint and said they were comfortable to raise a concern or give feedback. Complaints were investigated and responded to in a positive way. Feedback was regular

Inspection areas



Updated 4 April 2017

The service was safe.

People were safe living in the service. Staff had received training on how to safeguard people from abuse and were clear about how to respond to any allegation of abuse.

Medicines were stored, administered and disposed of safely by staff who were suitably trained. There were enough staff on duty to meet people�s needs. Appropriate checks where undertaken to ensure suitable staff were employed to work at the service

People had individual assessments of potential risks to their health and welfare. Staff responded to these risks to promote people�s safety.



Updated 4 April 2017

The service was effective.

Staff were trained and supported to deliver care in a way that responded to people�s needs.

Staff had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and DoLS and the need to involve appropriate people, such as relatives and professionals, in the decision making process.

Staff ensured people had access to external healthcare professionals, such as the GP and specialist nurses.

Staff monitored people�s nutritional needs and people had food and drink that met their needs and preferences.



Updated 4 April 2017

The service was caring.

People were supported by kind and caring staff. Relatives were made to feel welcome and included as an important part of people�s lives.

Everyone was positive about the care provided by all staff.

People had their differences respected and had their privacy and dignity protected.


Requires improvement

Updated 4 April 2017

The service was not always responsive.

People�s care plans did not always fully reflect their care and support needs. Staff did not have clear guidance on how to meet all people�s needs in a person centred way.

People were able to make individual and everyday choices and we saw staff supporting people to do this.

People had the opportunity to engage in a variety of activities and entertainment, either in groups or individually.

People were aware of how to make a complaint and felt that they had their views listened to and responded to.


Requires improvement

Updated 4 April 2017

The service was not always well-led.

The management systems did not always ensure safe and best practice was followed in all areas. This included accurate record keeping.

The acting manager was seen as approachable and supportive.

Systems were in place to gather information from people, relatives and staff and this was used to improve the service.