Cooper House

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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff and leaders fostered a positive, compassionate, listening culture that promoted trust and understanding between them and people using the service. The registered and area managers had instilled a positive working culture at the service. This was supported by our observations and feedback from people, relatives, staff and external professionals. One relative told us, “Managers and staff always are approachable and always have the time of day for you. They have a good rapport with relatives.”

The atmosphere was homely and welcoming, and staff were consistently available to people and polite and courteous in their approach. One person told us, “All the staff are brilliant and always approachable.”

People and staff were supported by capable and inclusive leaders who had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. The Registered, Deputy and Area Managers understood their roles and responsibilities, and received ongoing support from the Head of Care Operations who made themselves available for this assessment. When we brought minor concerns to their attention these were responded to openly and resolved promptly. The management team were receptive to our feedback and provided us with additional information we requested immediately following our onsite visits.

Feedback from people and staff confirmed managers were visible in the service and on hand to provide support when we required. Managers understood and knew people well within the service and were described by people and relatives as ‘always available, operated an ‘open door policy’ and ‘know everyone by name’. Staff were also complimentary about managers. A staff member told us, “Managers are good, this is the best it has been. They act quickly and address any concerns or worries I have no matter how many times I ask.”

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. People and relatives were able to raise concerns formally. A complaints policy was on display throughout the home and contact details of other agencies such as local authorities and CQC were also displayed. Staff had access to a whistleblowing policy and were confident in using it if they felt necessary. However, all the people we spoke either had, or felt they could if needed, raise a concern openly and directly with managers and staff. One relative told us, “If we have a concern or problem we raise it directly, it will be solved and not brushed under the carpet.” A staff member said, “I am comfortable raising any concern with managers directly knowing they will listen and sort it out.”

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.

Staff felt respected by managers, treated them as individuals, and as a whole workforce. The staff group was diverse. Staff from different faiths, religions and backgrounds were deployed. Staff and the registered manager gave examples of where reasonable adjustments had been made to support staff, for example, additional needs arising from a disability or flexible working.

Managers had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and overall good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support.

The provider had a range of quality assurance and oversight processes in place. However, we did identify a small number of areas which meant some auditing and oversight required enhancing. For example, the environment audit was not robust enough when considering outside spaces. We found a garden seat needed repainting and some decorative fencing needed repairing to avoid any potential skin injury. Two door thresholds needed adaptation to reduce the risk of a slip or trip. These were addressed immediately during the assessment and the audit was updated to include checks of these areas.

Care plan reviews also needed some enhancing to ensure people’s needs were fully reflected. One care plan required an updated risk assessment in relation to a person’s distressed behaviours and one care plan required an additional mental capacity assessment. We brought these to the attention of managers during the assessment and these were all acted upon and addressed at the time.

Aside from this the service was organised and well managed. Routines and structures were embedded and enabled the service to operate successfully, providing a good and inclusive service for people.

Registered persons were fully aware of their legal responsibility to be open and honest when things went wrong.

Managers and staff collaborated and worked in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.

Staff and leaders ensured people received holistic continuity of care and support which met their needs. Records showed that staff had contacted a range of health and social care professionals for people as their needs changed and specialist support was needed to maintain their well-being.

Partners we spoke with as part of the assessment confirmed the service was collaborative and worked jointly with them. A visiting health professional told us, “I’m happy the staff are supporting [name] with their condition, following our recommendations and contacting us for advice and guidance appropriately.”

Continuous learning and service improvement had been developed. Systems and processes had now been embedded to allow for service improvement to be monitored effectively following our previous assessment.

The service had a live action plan in place which tracked what, and by when, improvements were scheduled to be made. Our review of the action plan and observations in the service confirmed previous improvements that had been made. For instance, repairs to the lounge ceiling against those were completed and an extension to garden patio were due to commence in the next 4 weeks. This meant learning and improvement to address previous shortfalls had been taken seriously and acted upon.