Coopers Croft

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been requires improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

This service scored 58 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not always make sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. Although the provider carried out thorough assessments to understand each person's health, care, and support requirements at their admission into the service, they were not always updated following incidents and accidents. Some risk assessments lacked detail in how to reduce the risk to people in the communal areas when they had been identified as being at high risk of falling. One person had potentially come to harm due to the lack of a comprehensive risk assessment being put in place following an incident of alleged abuse. The lack of review of people’s risk assessments put them at risk of harm.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. While the provider aimed to deliver care and treatment based on recognised best practices, this was not consistently achieved in all areas. People’s risks were not always managed in line with best practise. Assistive technology in the communal areas was not utilised to its full advantage to mitigate risk of falls. Safeguarding procedures were not always followed appropriately to keep people safe from the risk of abuse.

People’s nutritional needs were met through personalised meal planning, and they told us they enjoyed the food and appreciated having options. Those who needed modified diets received meals suited to their needs, and a range of snacks and drinks were available throughout the home for people to help themselves.

The provider did not always work well across teams and services to support people. Prompt action had not been taken to safeguard people from abuse. The provider had not communicated with the registered manager when concerns had arisen, and the registered manager had not sought advice and support in a timely manner. This lack of joint working had left people at risk of abuse.

However, staff responded promptly and compassionately in urgent situations, as reflected in feedback from a relative who described how paramedics were called immediately following a fall, and a staff member remained with the individual throughout their hospital visit.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. People had access to a wide range of health care professionals and staff worked closely with them to make sure people’s medical needs were addressed quickly and consistently. People we spoke to gave us examples of when they had seen their GP and a chiropodist. A health professional who worked with the service told us, “I have no concerns. We work well with the home and staff are friendly and helpful they know their residents and referrals are made in a timely manner.”

The provider had systems in place to regularly check how people’s care and treatment were being delivered, with the aim of making improvements.However, this didn’t always happen in practice. In some cases, important steps, like following safeguarding procedures or acting on identified risks, were missed. This showed that while the provider was committed to improving care, more consistent oversight was needed to make sure people always receive safe and effective support.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. The provider worked in line with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), ensuring that people’s rights around consent were upheld. Individuals were informed about their rights and supported to make decisions about their care and treatment. Staff respected these choices and delivered person-centred care that reflected each person’s preferences and best interests, promoting autonomy and safeguarding liberty.