You are here

Copperdown Residential Care Home Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 24 October 2018

This inspection took place on 26 September 2018 and was unannounced. At the last inspection completed on 26 July 2017 we rated the service Requires Improvement.

At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the service is rated as Good overall.

Copperdown is a Residential 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.

Copperdown Residential Care Home accommodates up to 29 people in one adapted building. At the time of the inspection there were 25 people using the service.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. 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.

Governance systems were not always effective in identifying concerns and driving improvements whilst some improvements had been made, following our last inspection, more were needed.

People received their medicines as prescribed. Risks to people were assessed and planned for. There were sufficient staff available to meet people’s needs and staff were safely recruited. People were protected from the risk of cross infection and safeguarded from abuse. The provider learned when things went wrong.

Staff were supported in their role with an induction and training. People lived in an environment which was suitable to meet their needs. People could choose their meals and were supported to eat and drink. People were supported to maintain their health and well-being.

People had choice and control of their lives and staff were aware of how to support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service were supportive of this practice.

People were supported by caring staff that protected their privacy and dignity. People were supported to make choices and their independence was promoted. Peoples communication needs were assessed and planned for.

People had their preferences understood by staff. People were clear about how to make a complaint and these were responded to.

Notifications were submitted as required and the registered manager understood their responsibilities. People and their relatives were engaged in the service.

Inspection areas



Updated 24 October 2018

The service was safe.

People were safeguarded from potential abuse.

People�s risks were assessed and followed by staff.

People were supported by sufficient staff.

People�s medicines were administered safely.

People were protected from the spread of infection.

There were systems in place to learn when things went wrong.



Updated 24 October 2018

The service was effective.

People�s needs were assessed and planned for.

People were supported by trained staff.

The environment was designed to meet the needs of people.

People�s rights were protected by staff that worked within the principles of the MCA.

People�s needs for food and drinks were met and they could have a choice.

People received support to monitor their health.



Updated 24 October 2018

The service was caring.

People were supported by caring staff.

People were involved in choices about their care, independence was encouraged and people�s individual communication needs met.

People�s privacy was maintained, and staff treated people with dignity and respect.



Updated 24 October 2018

The service was responsive.

People could follow their interests and spend time doing activities they enjoyed.

People�s needs and preferences were followed by staff, and documented in people�s care plans.

People understood how to make a complaint.


Requires improvement

Updated 24 October 2018

The service was not consistently well led.

The systems in place to ensure quality care were not always effective.

People were involved in the service and asked about the quality of the service.

Staff felt supported by the management team.

The provider notified us of incidents.