During an assessment under our new approach
Assessment dates were 17 to 25 September 2026. We visited the service on 17 and 21 of September 2026. Cooper House is a nursing home providing accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care and treatment of disease, disorder or injury. Some people were living with dementia. This assessment was carried out in line with CQC’s assessment priorities in response to information we had received about the service. The service can support up to 80 people. At the time of the assessment, the service was supporting 74 people.
There were robust systems in place to ensure people remained safe. There was a positive culture of safety in the service. There was a positive learning culture, and appropriate professionals were involved to manage risk. The environment and infection prevention and control (IPC) were safely managed. Most staff had completed relevant training. Where there were any gaps, these were immediately rectified by the service. Medicines optimisation was safe, however, ‘as and when’ (PRN) protocols required increased detail, and medication storage needed improvement. This was immediately rectified by the provider.
People’s needs were well assessed, including during pre-admission, and people were delivered evidence-based care. However, there were at times contradictory or missing information, for example, where people had modified fluids; these gaps were immediately rectified by the service. Staff and teams worked well together, and people were supported to live healthier lives to a high standard, including closely working with veterans and end of life services. There were appropriate consent arrangements in place.
People described staff as kind and caring, and people’s immediate needs were met. Staff told us their wellbeing was well supported by leaders. People were supported to maximise their independence. People’s care documentation at times required better oversight to ensure people were treated as individuals, this was due to at times missing information, for example, how to support someone with emotional distress. Improvements were put in place by the provider following feedback.
People’s care was person centred and diverse to meet people’s needs, however, there was at times incorrect information in people’s care plans. During our initial onsite visits, there was a lack of accessible information, however, following feedback, this was put into place immediately. There was not always evidence people were involved in care planning. The provider was aware of this and was working on improving this. We received positive feedback from professionals as to how well the service understands people’s diverse health and care needs. There were some examples of support relating to equality in experiences and outcomes, for example, where people had cultural or religious needs, however, this was not always consistent. For example, it was not always clear how staff would ensure good communication; however, following feedback the provider put appropriate measures in place. There were appropriate end-of-life arrangements in place and the provider worked closely with end-of-life services.
There was a shared culture within the service. Leaders demonstrated compassion and capability, and people, relatives and staff felt able to speak up about concerns they may have. There was a high level of oversight to support good governance, however, these did not always identify issues in documentation. The provider has advised they will make improvements in this area. Professionals provided highly positive feedback regarding collaborative working with the service, and there was an active commitment to learning and innovation.