• Care Home
  • Care home

Coppice House

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

Main Road, Huntley, Gloucester, Gloucestershire, GL19 3DZ (01452) 831896

Provided and run by:
Community Homes of Intensive Care and Education Limited

Important: The provider of this service changed. See old profile
Important:

We served a warning notice on Community Homes of Intensive Care and Education Limited on 11 June 2026 and the registered manager for failing to meet the regulations related to safe care and treatment and governance and oversight processes at Coppice House.

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Our current view of the service

Requires improvement

Updated 2 April 2026

Date of assessment: 29 April 2026 to 18 May 2026. Coppice House is a care home supporting autistic people and people with a learning disability. There was a registered manager in post. At the time of the assessment there were 10 people living at the service.

We assessed the service against ‘Right care, right support, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities most people take for granted.

The provider had systems to monitor, manage and review the service however these were not effective in ensuring people received safe care and treatment.

We found care plans and care records were not being regularly reviewed or updated with new and important information about people’s needs.

Staff were unclear on how to support people with specific conditions such as constipation. People were not receiving their medication as prescribed.

People were not being supported in line with their communication plans.

Whilst some people had access to a good range of activities and led a fulfilled life, other people were not receiving their commissioned hours to support them.

We found the environment did not lend itself to right care right support right culture and not all peoples living environments were person centred.

The service was operating a blanket policy in communal areas of keeping drinks locked away in a kitchen despite a high number of people being on 1:1 commissioned hours of support that would enable people to have access to drinks freely to mitigate any risks this may pose.

Although some positive outcomes were achieved for people, these were not experienced consistently across the service. Opportunities for independence and meaningful engagement were limited for some people.

Family members told us they felt their loved ones were well cared for.

The provider was responsive to our feedback and started to address our immediate concerns straight away.

We found breaches in safe care and treatment, person centred care and good governance.

In addition, in instances where CQC has begun a process of regulatory action, we may publish this information on our website after any representations and/or appeals have been concluded, if the action has been taken forward.

 

 

 

 

People's experience of the service

Updated 2 April 2026

People’s relatives told us they believed their loved ones were cared for.

One relative told us “Yes, I would say [person] is safe as they’ve been there quite a few years, and I’ve always had good contact with the staff. I’ve not visited the place, but I have good contact with them and the carers who used to bring him down to us.”Another relative told us, “He’s safe I feel, because basically he’s settled in, seems content and happy and when he comes to us, hes quite happy to go back.”

We observed the interactions and communication between people and staff throughout our site visits. We spoke with some people’s relatives, and we used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

We observed some people without meaningful occupation, and people were not always supported in a way which was appropriate to their needs and preferences.

We found some improvements were needed to ensure people were supported to work towards their goals and to ensure all people were offered meaningful activities.