Coopers Croft

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture. This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

This service scored 61 (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 have a clear shared vision and strategy. Coopers Croft is registered to provide care to older people and people living with dementia. We were told by the quality manager who joined us on the day of the inspection that Coopers Croft was a ‘supported living home’, and that people who lived at the service did not have complex needs. Yet we found many people living with dementia and associated needs. The upper floor had been assigned as a designated floor for people with dementia. Coopers Croft was not registered as a ‘supported living home’ and the provider failed to acknowledge that some people living at the service had complex needs. When incidents had occurred due to people’s mental health needs these had not been taken seriously and acted upon swiftly. During our feedback there was recognition from the quality manager and registered manager that people’s needs may change following admission into the service, and they needed to be able to adapt to those needs.

Not all leaders understood the context in which the provider delivered care, treatment and support. Leaders did not always have the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. While there was a general commitment to person-centred care, the provider and registered manager did not act swiftly to safeguard individuals following a serious incident. Despite being made aware of a safeguarding concern, appropriate action was delayed, leaving the person and others without timely support or protection. This lack of urgency demonstrated a gap in leadership oversight and understanding of safeguarding responsibilities and highlighted the need for stronger systems to ensure prompt and effective responses to incidents that impact people’s safety and wellbeing.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. Individuals were encouraged to share feedback, raise concerns, and contribute to decisions about their care. A complaints procedure was visible around the home, promoting transparency and accessibility. During our visit, we discussed with the registered manager the importance of making this information more accessible, such as providing it in larger print, as the current version was difficult to read due to its small font size.

The whistleblowing procedure was clearly displayed around the home for staff to access. This formal process enable staff to raise concerns about poor practice, unsafe care, or wrongdoing in a safe and protected way. Staff we spoke to told us they knew the who and how to raise concerns with. We also received information prior to the inspection indicating that staff were aware of the whistleblowing procedure and felt confident in using it when necessary.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them. Efforts were made to improve equality and ensure fair treatment for all staff, regardless of background or protected characteristics. Staff told us they felt well treated at work and there were staff initiatives and reward ceremonies. Staff all received the same opportunities to train and develop themselves.Staff were encouraged to contribute to service development through regular staff meetings and events. There was an employee assistance programme in place which offered free advice and support for all staff to access.

The provider did not always have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability or good governance. They did not always act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate. The provider and registered manager undertook a series of audits to assess and improve the quality and safety of the service. However, existing quality assurance systems had not identified the issues we found in this assessment, including issues around assessing risks to people and the management of safeguarding incidents.

The registered manager acknowledged areas where practice had fallen short and showed a willingness to learn from incidents to improve service delivery. There was evidence of reflective practice and a desire to embed lessons learned into future safeguarding responses.

The provider and registered manager understood their responsibility to work in partnership with others, helping services run smoothly and ensuring people experienced joined-up care. There was regular engagement with the local community, including activities both inside and outside the home. A local MP visited the home and spent time with residents over afternoon tea, and the local church held services for those who wished to attend. Leadership also encouraged meaningful community engagement. People living at the home were supported to maintain links with their local communities through regular outings and visits to places of worship. The home welcomed external visitors, including local volunteers and entertainers.

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They did not always encourage creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They did not always actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research. Although systems were in place to review care and treatment, there was a lack of effective action in response to key concerns. Safeguarding procedures were not always followed appropriately, and risks related to falls were not consistently assessed or managed. These gaps suggest that opportunities to learn from incidents and improve practice were sometimes missed, limiting the provider’s ability to deliver safe and responsive care and undermining efforts to drive meaningful improvement.