Coopers Croft

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs. This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 64 (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 made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices, working in partnership with individuals to respond to any relevant changes in their needs. A relative told us, “They have regular reviews of my relatives care which include me.”

People were offered activities that met their individual needs. One person had 2 pieces of land outside their room where they had planted flowers and had cleared a part to put a shed on which they wanted to buy themselves. They proudly showed all they had done for themself. Other people told us how they were supported to access the community for activities of their liking. One person told us, “I can go out when I want. The staff take me. I like that.”

The provider demonstrated a clear understanding of the diverse health and care needs of individuals and the wider local community. People were supported in ways that respected their choices and promoted continuity, with services tailored to reflect cultural, social, and personal preferences. By working collaboratively with other professionals and services, the provider ensured that individuals received consistent and coordinated support that met their holistic needs.

The provider made efforts to ensure that people received relevant information about their care, rights, and daily routines. We saw regular residents’ meetings took place, to gain people’s views on the service and have a say in how the home was run. One person told us, “We have residents’ meetings to give them feedback.”

Staff communicated clearly and took time to explain things in a way that people could understand. However, some information was not always presented in accessible formats, which limited understanding for individuals with specific communication needs. The registered manager recognised this and was working towards improving the accessibility of written and verbal information, including the use of easy-read documents, visual aids, and alternative communication methods.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. Clear processes were in place to ensure that people’s views were actively sought and valued. Regular residents, meetings took place and staff involved individuals in decisions about their care and communicated any changes made as a result of their input. The complaints procedure was visible around the home; however, it could have benefitted from being in larger print for those with sight difficulties. Following the inspection the registered manager told us they had arranged for the format to be made larger.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support andtreatment they needed when they needed it.Although staff were responsive to individuals’ changing needs ensuring timely interventions, the provider and management did not always act in a timely way to protect people from the risk of harm. However, people told us they felt reassured knowing that help was available when they needed it, and that their wellbeing was prioritised. One relative told us, “They are really good here. If there’s a problem, they sort it out immediately.” A person told us, “They have called the paramedics for me when I fell and they have taken photos of the red marks on my arm this morning, to make sure I am ok.”

Leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this. Incidents of alleged abuse had not been acted upon in a timely manner, and this had left people at risk of harm. We had been made aware of an alleged incident of abuse. We found that due to the person’s mental capacity they had not received timely support to investigate their concerns. This meant because of this person’s disability they had been treated differently. The registered manager acknowledged that this incident should have been handled differently, and lessons had been learned.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.Care plans showed that when people were willing to, they had discussed their end of life wishes with staff. This meant the provider and staff would know how they wished to be treated and any specific requests. Other people had chosen not to discuss their end-of-life preferences, and this was respected and recorded.