Coppice House

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

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

This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person centred care.

This service scored 61 (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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People's care had not always been planned and delivered in a way which was personalised to their needs and promoted their wellbeing in line with the principles of Right Care, Right Support, Right Culture. Despite care documentation including person-centred information about people’s likes, dislikes, and the best ways to support them, these were not consistently reviewed and updated regularly. Due to the service migrating to an electronic care planning system, there was confusion amongst the staffing team of where care documentation was to be accessed from.

Whilst people had allocated key workers, records showed staff did not know how or were not communicating with people as identified in care plans.

The manager told us some people communicated using Makaton. No staff had received training in the use of Makaton, and we did not see this used with people.

Relatives told us the care their loved ones received was what the person wanted. One relative told us, “I don’t think there’s anything more that he wants to do because he’s getting the support he needs and he does do a lot of activities. They go out as a house for a meal, and I have never had concerns about the staff ratio for him.”

Some people had access to a range of activities such as horse riding, going to a gym, and swimming but people’s access to activities was not equitable.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Staff worked collaboratively with other professionals to provide consistent care and evidence demonstrated communication with external services and professionals. We observed health professionals assessing people during our visit. Staff and professionals shared information about people..

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People at the service communicated non-verbally, we saw evidence of some communication aids around the home, but we did not observe these being used during our assessment.

One person had a cabinet with social story pictures in to help with their understanding of daily routines. The manager told us, “We used to have pictures, person would pointed to the cabinet but hardly anything and said they have gone we know what they like”. Staff told us people understood verbal information. Some documents were displayed in an easy read format.

Whilst meals looked appetising and were designed to be nutritious for people, how people were offered these was not clear. The menu had some pictures on to show people the meal options but from our observations the pictures did not match the meal being served.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

The manager told us the service used various ways to reflect people’s views throughobservations recorded in daily records, keyworker sessions with people and care reviews.People’s relatives were involved where possible to help support people’s experiences and preferences. However, records we viewed of staff and meetings with people such as key worker sessions did not reflect people’s views and records did not demonstrate how staff tried to support people’s communication method. This meant people did not always have adequate support to share their views. During one meeting a person was asked if they liked their room and had they chosen anything for it, the record said the person ‘showed no interest’. We did not see evidence of other ways people had been supported to provide feedback.

Relatives were positive about how they were involved in people’s care and support. One relative told us “Yes, to a degree yes, but it’s not like going in and seeing them.

The last two or three reviews that we’ve done were online, so I don’t see what’s going on there, but I do see 2 or 3 faces on the screen.” Another relative told us, “With feedback they have a sort of internal auditor and he phoned me a week ago to ask how things were going, and he was quite neutral and was really listening well. I would say that the staff there have listened to what we say, as we do speak up if we need to, as we’d want to do that because we have to have trust.”.

The provider made sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People had access to services and there was joint working with other health and social care agencies. Despite some gaps in documentation, records of people’s health appointments provided us with an overview of when people had received treatment.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

The provider was not consistently adhering to right care, right support, right culture. People who had a primary diagnosis of a learning disability did not always live in a tailored environment and their opportunities (ordinary life principles) were not always equally promoted.

People were not always encouraged to share their views and be involved in developing the service. For example, regular resident meetings and keyworker sessions did not reflect people’s input or views.

Not everyone had the same access to the community despite having additional support agreed for this.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

End of life wishes were recorded in people’s care plans, this showed the opportunity had been given to have these conversations should people wish to.

Relatives were involved where they wanted to be, some plans showed specifics around funeral arrangements including songs to be sung at the funeral and if people chose to be buried with loved ones.