You are here

Archived: North West Copper Beech Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 4 April 2017

The inspection visit at Copper Beech Homecare Ltd took place on 02 and 03 March 2017 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service to people and we needed to be sure someone would be in at the office.

Copper Beech Homecare Ltd is registered to provide personal care and support to people living in their own homes. At the time of our inspection, 34 people were receiving a personal care service. The office is based in Riverway House, which is situated between Lancaster and Morecambe.

Since the last inspection, the provider had employed a new manager who was in the process of applying to become the registered manager. 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.

At the last inspection visit, carried out in August 2016, we found the registered provider had not met the fundamental standards. We identified concerns in relation to Person-centred care, Dignity and respect, Safe care and treatment, Receiving and acting on complaints, Good governance and Staffing. We asked the registered provider to submit an action plan to demonstrate what improvements they were going to make. We used this inspection visit in March 2017 to check the required improvements had been made

During this inspection, we found action had been taken to improve the service. Staff had received abuse training. They understood their responsibilities to report any unsafe care or abusive practices related to the safeguarding of vulnerable adults. Staff we spoke with told us they were aware of the safeguarding procedure.

We found staffing levels were regularly reviewed to ensure people were safe. There was an appropriate skill mix of staff to ensure the needs of people who used the service were met.

Care plans were organised and had identified the care and support people required. We found they were personalised and informative about the care people received. They had been kept under review and updated when necessary. They reflected any risks and people’s changing needs.

Staff responsible for assisting people with their medicines had received training to ensure they were competent and had the skills required.

The provider had put in place procedures around recruitment and selection to minimise the risk of unsuitable employees working with vulnerable people. Required checks had been completed prior to any staff commencing work at the service. This was confirmed during discussions with staff.

We found staffing levels were suitable with an appropriate skill mix to meet the needs of people who used the service. The number of people who were supported and their individual needs determined staffing levels.

Staff members received training related to their role and were knowledgeable about their responsibilities. They had the skills, knowledge and experience required to support people with their care and support needs.

People and their representatives told us they were involved in their care and had discussed and consented to their care packages. We found staff had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).

When appropriate meals and drinks were prepared for people. This ensured people received adequate nutrition and hydration.

Staff we spoke with understood the support needs of people they visited. They knew how individuals wanted their care to be delivered.

A complaints procedure was available and people we spoke with said they knew how to complain. We saw examples where a complaint had been received, responded to, investigated and the outcome documented.

The registered manager had sought feedback from people receiving support and staff for input on how the service could continually

Inspection areas



Updated 4 April 2017

The service was safe.

Staff had been trained in safeguarding and were knowledgeable about abuse and the ways to recognise and report it.

Risks to people were managed by staff, who were aware of the assessments to reduce potential harm to people.

There were enough staff available to meet people�s needs, safely. Recruitment procedures the service had were safe.

Medicines were managed in a safe manner.



Updated 4 April 2017

The service was effective.

Staff had the appropriate training and support to meet people�s needs.

The management team were aware of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and had knowledge of the process to follow.

Where appropriate, people were protected against the risks of dehydration and malnutrition.



Updated 4 April 2017

The service was caring.

People who used the service told us they were treated with kindness and compassion in their day-to-day care.

Staff had developed positive caring relationships and spoke about those they visited in a warm, compassionate manner.

People were involved in making decisions about their care and the support they received.



Updated 4 April 2017

The service was responsive.

People received care that was person centred and responsive to their needs likes and dislikes.

The provider gave people a flexible service, which responded to their changing needs, lifestyle choices and appointments.

People told us they knew how to make a complaint and felt confident any issues they raised would be dealt with.



Updated 4 April 2017

The service was well led.

People and staff felt the management team were supportive and approachable.

The provider had ensured there were clear lines of responsibility and accountability within the management team.

The management team had oversight of and acted to maintain the quality of the service provided.