The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Copwood Respite Unit

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

15 Copgrove Road, Holmewood, Bradford, West Yorkshire, BD4 0DJ (01274) 685546

Provided and run by:
Lifeways Community Care Limited

Important: This service was previously managed by a different provider - see old profile

All Inspections

6 December 2018

During a routine inspection

About the service: Copwood Respite Unit is a six bedded service providing respite care services for people with learning and physical disabilities located on the outskirts of Bradford. At the time of our visit there were five people using the service.

People’s experience of using this service: Improvements to the safety of the premises and quality audits have been made since our last inspection in August 2017.

People were happy in the company of staff and were able to communicate with them to make their needs understood. Activities were on offer to keep people occupied both on a group and individual basis. Trips out were also organised in line with people’s preferences.

Medicines were being administered safely and people’s dietary needs were met.

Staff were kind and caring and there were sufficient numbers to keep people safe and to meet their care needs. Staff were receiving appropriate training which was good and relevant to their role. Staff were supported by the registered manager and were receiving regular formal supervision where they could discuss their on-going development needs.

Care plans were up to date and detailed exactly what care and support people wanted and needed. Risk assessments were in place and showed what action had been taken to mitigate any risks which had been identified. Appropriate referrals were being made to the safeguarding team when this had been necessary.

There was a complaints procedure available which enabled people to raise any concerns or complaints about the care or support they received.

The registered manager provided staff with leadership and was described as being very approachable. Audits and checks were carried out and used to drive continuous improvements to the service people received.

People’s feedback was used to make changes to the service, for example, to the menus and activities.

More information in Detailed Findings below:

Rating at last inspection: Requires improvement (report published 18 October 2017).

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection. We found improvements had been made since our last inspection and the service has met the characteristics of Good in all areas.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.

25 August 2017

During a routine inspection

Copwood Respite Unit provides respite accommodation and personal care for up to six people with learning disabilities at any one time. The inspection was carried out on 25 and 29 August 2017. We gave five days’ notice so we could speak with relatives before the inspection visit and to make sure there would be people using the service.

There was a registered manager in post. 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.

The last inspection took place on 21 May 2014 when the service was good in each domain area and rated good overall. On this visit we found some issues with the premises and some audits were not effective.

We saw staff was kind and caring and there were enough of them to keep people safe and to meet their care needs. Staff were receiving appropriate training and they told us the training was good and relevant to their role. Staff told us they felt supported by the registered manager and were receiving formal supervision where they could discuss their on-going development needs.

Care plans were up to date and detailed exactly what care and support people wanted and needed. Risk assessments were in place and showed what action had been taken to mitigate any risks which had been identified. We saw appropriate referrals were being made to the safeguarding team when this had been necessary.

Medicines were being administered safely; however, the services medicines policy was not being adhered to.

Staff knew about people’s dietary needs and preferences and there was a choice of meals available.

We found the service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible.

Activities were on offer to keep people occupied both on a group and individual basis. Trips out were also organised in line with people’s preferences.

There was a complaints procedure available which enabled people to raise any concerns or complaints about the care or support they received.

The registered manager provided staff with leadership and was described as being very approachable.

Audits and checks were carried out. Some of these needed to be more robust to prevent some of the concerns we identified from occurring.

People’s feedback was used to make changes to the service, for example, to the menu’s and activities.

We found two breaches of the Health and Social Care Act (2008) Regulated Activities 2014 Regulations. You can see what action we asked the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

21 May 2015

During a routine inspection

Copwood Respite Unit provides respite accommodation and personal care for up to 6 people with learning disabilities at any one time. The inspection was carried out on 21 May 2015. We gave 48 hours’ notice we were attended the service as it is occasionally unoccupied during the day. At the last inspection in April 2014 the home was compliant with all the standards we looked at.

Due to people’s complex needs we were unable to speak to people who used the service. We spoke with 14 relatives of people who used the service. They all told us that Copwood delivered a high quality service and nobody had any concerns about the way the service was run. People said staff with kind and friendly and knew their relatives well.

Sufficient quantities of suitably trained staff were deployed by the service, the numbers of staff was dependant on who was staying at the unit on any given night. Staffing levels were such that staff were able to deliver attentive care, with time to spend prolonged periods socialising and reassuring people.

Robust recruitment procedures were in place to ensure that staff were suitable for their role.People who used the service had a role in the recruitment of staff.

The premises was appropriate for its use and was well maintained. Sufficient living space, bedrooms, a sensory room and secure garden were available for people to use.

Risks to people’s health and safety were appropriately managed. Relatives told us they felt assured their relatives were safe when using the service. The service completed risk assessments which provided staff with information on how to deliver safe care. Safeguarding procedures were in place and staff had a good understanding of how to identify and act on abuse in order to keep people safe.

Medicines were appropriately managed by the service. Relatives told us that the service was vigilant when it came to medication, for example if people did not arrive at the service with the correct medication it was immediately identified by staff. Records of the support given by staff were in place which demonstrated people received their medicines as prescribed.

Relatives told us the home provided a range of food which met people’s individual likes and preferences. A varied menu was available and plans were in place to ensure people were provided with appropriate support at mealtimes.

The manager and staff had a good understanding of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and several DoLS applications had been submitted to the supervisory body. The manager told us they would prioritise further applications for others who were planning to stay at the service. The service was acting within the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA).

Relatives told us that staff were appropriately skilled to undertake their role. Staff had received a range of training in subjects such as safeguarding, mental capacity and manual handling. Staff had a good understanding of the topics we asked them about demonstrating that training was effective.

We observed staff treated people with dignity and respect and provided a high level of attentive care. It was clear from the interactions we observed that staff knew people well and their individual likes, dislikes and preferences.

People’s needs were assessed prior to staying at the service to enable staff to deliver appropriate care. A range of care plans were in place which demonstrated the service had taken the time to find out in detail about each person who stayed at the centre. This helped to ensure highly personalised care was provided. Staff had time each day to read people’s care plans so they knew how to meet the needs of people staying at the unit that night.

Relatives spoke positively about the registered manager and said they were effective in communicating with them and dealing with any minor issues which arose. A range of checks were in place to ensure the service delivered appropriate care, these included medication and financial audits and health and safety checks. People’s views were sought through service user and relative meetings and periodic quality surveys.

9 April 2013

During a routine inspection

During the inspection we had the opportunity to speak with one person who used the service. They told us "I like it here." We spoke with two relatives of people who used the service. One relative said "There is always plenty for people to do". Another relative said 'I am impressed with the staff, they are miracle workers.'

We found people and their relatives were involved in the planning of care and individuals needs and preferences were catered for.

We found staff displayed a caring attitude towards people in the home and people's care and welfare needs were properly assessed.

We found the provider had robust systems in place to safeguard people from the risk of abuse and staff had been properly trained in identifying the signs of abuse.

We saw evidence staff were well supported by the management structure in the carrying out of their duties and provided with appropriate training and supervision.