You are here

Archived: Coton Hill House Requires improvement

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 24 January 2020

About the service

Coton Hill House provides accommodation and nursing or personal care for up to 45 people. There were 40 people living at the home on the day of our inspection, some of whom were living with dementia. People were cared for in five units over two floors. Cherry and Berwick units were on the ground floor. River View, West View and Castle View units were on the first floor which were accessible by stairs and lifts.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People did not always receive safe support with their medicines.

Environmental checks did not always follow best practice designed to keep people safe.

The provider's quality assurance and monitoring systems were not always effective in assuring a good and consistent service.

People were protected from the risks of abuse and ill-treatment as the staff team were trained to recognise potential signs of abuse and understood what to do to if they suspected wrongdoing.

The provider had assessed the risks to people associated with their care and support. Staff members were knowledgeable about these risks and knew what to do to minimise the potential for harm to people. When changes to risks occurred, the provider had systems in place to review how they supported people.

Staff members followed effective infection prevention and control procedures when supporting people. Staff members had access to, and used, appropriate personal protection equipment.

The provider supported staff in providing effective care for people through person-centred care planning, training and one-to-one supervision.

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 at Coton Hill House supported this practice.

People had access to additional healthcare services when required. Staff members knew people’s individual health outcomes and supported them appropriately. People were supported to maintain a healthy diet by a staff team which knew their individual preferences.

People received help and support from a kind and compassionate staff team with whom they had developed positive relationships. People were supported by staff members who were aware of their individual protected characteristics like age, gender and disability.

People were provided with information in a way they could understand. The provider had systems in place to encourage and respond to any complaints or compliments from people or those close to them.

The provider, and management team, had good links with the local communities within which people lived.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was ‘Good’ (published 13 June 2017).


We have identified one breach or regulations in relation to people not being safely supported.

Please see the action we have told the provider to take at the end of this report.

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.

Inspection areas


Requires improvement

Updated 24 January 2020

The service was not always safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.



Updated 24 January 2020

The service was effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.



Updated 24 January 2020

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.



Updated 24 January 2020

The service was responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 24 January 2020

The service was not always well-led.

Details are in our well-Led findings below.