Coppice House

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement.

This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect...

This service scored 55 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Whilst staff showed kindness to people they supported, some lacked the knowledge and skills to empathise with people and how they were feeling. People did not always have meaningful interactions with staff. Staff were not always using communication methods identified in people’s care plans.

However, feedback from relatives in this area was positive. One relative told us, “I can see that they are very relaxed there, because I visit regularly and the staff are very polite and they ring about anything”. And another relative said “We’ve got to know the staff and there are some nice people there who are fond of him, and they say when he’s been away, ‘It hasn’t been as nice without him”.

Theservicedid not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Observations showed this person was not actively engaged with by staff when in communal areas. We observed them stood in a corner of the room and a member of staff asked them if they ‘want something or to sit down’. This did not demonstrate the principles of right care, right support, right culture.

While some people’s care plans reflected their needs, preferences, interests and how people could be supported with engagement, this was not evident with everyone. One person was supported to have a specific religious diet which was important to them. However, we found another person who required 2:1 support when they went out was not receiving this support on a weekly basis, which meant they were not afforded the same opportunities as other people living at the service.

Team meeting minutes reflected on a few occasions the manager raising with staff they were not engaging or interacting with people and attending to their own needs first.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Care plans included person-centred information about people’s likes, dislikes, and the best ways to support them. However, incomplete and fragmented records made it difficult to evidence consistency, and some risk assessments and care plans required updating.

Observations showed people’s care plans were not always being followed. Some people had more involvement in their everyday support.

Whilst the service held monthly house meetings with people the records we viewed did not always show how people had been involved in planning their own care, what they were happy with or wanted to change. Relative feedback was positive. One relative told us ‘[person] gets very good care, and the manager works really well with our family as we go once or twice a week and talk openly, and they adapt things for him.[Person] wouldn’t go in any vehicle apart from mine and we worked on it really hard together and it took a year .. and we made it.”

The service did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

In some incidents staff did not recognise when people needed interventions for their health.

Staff were trained to use a recognised person-centred behaviour support framework to minimise distress to people. Staff told us they knew what signs to look out for if people were becoming distressed and how to respond to this appropriately. Records of behaviour observations mostly showed how staff were able to reassure people and minimise distress through proactive positive behaviour support methods.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

The provider offered incentives such as employee of the month and recognised when staff went above and beyond, for example there were staff awards ceremonies held by the company. The provider held a talent show for people to take part in and staff supported people in this.

The provider offered flexible working and reasonable adjustments. Many staff at the service opted for longer shifts. The service did not use agency staff and had a stable work force

Staff told us the management team were approachable.