You are here

Archived: The Coach House Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 27 May 2016

The inspection was completed on 15 March 2016 and 20 April 2016 and there were 12 people living at the service when we inspected.

The Coach House is one of several services owned by Family Mosaic Housing. The service provides accommodation, personal care and nursing care for up to 12 people who have a neurological condition which has been acquired through a life changing event or diagnosis.

The service had a registered manager in post. 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.

Staff had a good understanding and knowledge of safeguarding procedures and were clear about the actions they would take to protect the people they supported.

There were sufficient numbers of staff available to meet people’s needs. Appropriate recruitment checks were in place which helped to protect people and ensure staff were suitable to work at the service. Staff told us that they felt well supported in their role and received regular supervision and an annual appraisal of their overall performance.

Risks to people’s health and wellbeing were appropriately assessed, managed and reviewed. Care plans were sufficiently detailed and provided an accurate description of people’s care and support needs. People were supported to maintain good healthcare and had access to a range of healthcare services. The management of medicines within the service was safe.

Appropriate assessments had been carried out where people living at the service were not able to make decisions for themselves and to help ensure their rights were protected.

People were supported to be able to eat and drink satisfactory amounts to meet their nutritional needs and the mealtime experience for people was positive.

People were treated with kindness and respected by staff. Staff understood people’s needs and provided care and support accordingly. Staff had a good relationship with the people they supported.

An effective system was in place to respond to complaints and concerns. The provider’s quality assurance arrangements were appropriate to ensure that where improvements to the quality of the service was identified, these were addressed.

Inspection areas



Updated 27 May 2016

The service was safe.

There was enough staff available to meet people’s care and support needs.

The provider had systems in place to safeguard people who used the service. Risks were appropriately managed to ensure that people were kept safe.

The provider had arrangements in place to manage people’s medicines safely.



Updated 27 May 2016

The service was effective.

People were well cared for by staff that were well trained and had the right knowledge and skills to carry out their roles.

Staff had a good knowledge and understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Where people lacked capacity, decisions had been made in their best interests.

People were supported to access appropriate services for their on-going healthcare needs.

The provider had arrangements in place for people to have their nutritional needs met.



Updated 27 May 2016

The service was caring.

People were provided with care and support that was personalised to their individual needs.

Staff understood people’s care needs and responded appropriately.

The provider had arrangements in place to promote people’s dignity and to treat them with respect.



Updated 27 May 2016

The service was responsive.

Staff were responsive to people’s care and support needs.

People were supported to enjoy and participate in activities of their choice or abilities.

People’s care plans were detailed to enable staff to deliver care that met people’s individual needs.



Updated 27 May 2016

The service was well-led.

The registered manager was clear about their roles, responsibility and accountability and staff felt supported by them.

There was a positive culture that was open and inclusive.

Appropriate systems were in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service provided.