Coppice Lea

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 remained good.

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 71 (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 told us they received person-centred care in line with their needs and preferences. A relative said, “They know [family member’s] likes and dislikes. They have a laugh together” and another stated, “They are able to support [family member] and somehow still make it seem like she has choices.”

Some people living with dementia sometimes displayed behaviours that could be seen as challenging to others. Where this was the case, there were positive behaviour care plans in place. These contained a description of what may trigger the distressed behaviour, such as possible underlying causes including pain, hunger or the need to use the toilet. Care plans described techniques to help the person, such as reassuring communication and re-direction techniques.

However, in the case of the person who had been given notice to leave, although their care plan stated how to reassure and support them when they were anxious or distressed, little had been done to fully meet their needs following several incidents of them going out of the building. Despite all staff being trained in dementia care and demonstrating an understanding of this condition, they had not fully understood what caused the person’s distress, how to reduce this and how to make adaptations to the home to keep them safe. We discussed this with the registered manager, deputy manager and regional manager during our feedback.

People were supported to take part in meaningful activities of their choice. People told us they enjoyed the activities on offer and their preferences were taken into consideration. One person told us, “I think they’re trying lots of things to keep people occupied. There are music festivals, even origami. They have had a therapy animal visit. I really enjoyed that. If you had mentioned about the power of therapy animals before my illness, I would have laughed. I wish they would bring the animals in more often.”

Relatives thought the activity program was good and people enjoyed activities provided. One relative told us, “[Family member] will always go if there is an outside entertainer. They have talks too, which [they] find interesting. And [they] love the therapy animals – everyone does. [Activity coordinators] run the activities and they are very good. In the summer the garden gets used and there are BBQs” and another said, “[Family member] likes walking around the home and gardens and [their] mood has improved.”

The home was introducing a recording system which captured people’s levels of engagement during activities. A member of staff explained this was particularly important for people who were being cared for in bed. The service was currently involved in phase 1 of the pilot scheme and were hoping this would in time help plan activities to benefit people who might not be able to express themselves.

Healthcare professionals who were regularly involved in people’s care thought people’s care was person-centred and people’s needs were met. A healthcare professional told us, “The needs of all residents are met fully. I therefore have no concerns currently.”

People’s care plans were recorded respectfully and in a person-centred way.However, we found people’s care records lacked details and were repetitive. For example, almost every entry ended in ‘was content’ regardless of what else was recorded.

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

People told us they received good care and their healthcare needs were met and relatives echoed this. A healthcare professional added, “The staff are very well trained to flag up any concerns they may have and I trust their judgement fully.”

People’s care plans described their healthcare needs and how to meet these. We saw their care plans were detailed and personalised. For example, where a person was living with a chronic health condition, there were clear instructions for staff to follow, so they could anticipate the person becoming unwell and take appropriate action.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The registered manager told us they recognised the importance of effective communication.

People’s communication needs were assessed during the pre-admission assessment so information could be made available to them in a format that suited them. People's care plans detailed their preferences and any aids they needed to support effective communication.

People and relatives told us communication was effective, and they were provided with all the information they needed. For example, one person living with a cognitive impairment had difficulty expressing themselves. Their care plan stated for staff to speak clearly and slowly and offer two clear options to help them make decisions. The care plan also stated the person responded well to touch for reassurance, and to use this appropriately during communication to build trust and cooperation.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The provider ensured people and relatives had the necessary information in relation to processes for sharing feedback or raising concerns. One person commented, “I wouldn’t hesitate to say something if I wasn’t happy about something.” A relative added, “There have been a couple of silly things and they did get them sorted. We spoke to the [staff] in the manager’s office. They’re very friendly and helpful.”

The registered manager had implemented a ‘message to the manager’ process whereby people could write a comment and put it in the registered manager’s door. Messages were regularly checked and action taken to address issues raised.

People and relatives confirmed they were involved in the planning of their care and support. One person told us, “My [relative] handled the care plan. [They] speak with the senior staff here. Yes I’m happy with that.” Relatives added, “There is a care-plan, which we were happy with” and “We were going through my relative’s care plan to check to see if [their] wishes were appropriate. The head nurse, asked if we would like access to the plan.”

Care plans were reviewed regularly, and people were asked for their feedback about the care they received and anything they would like to change. People and relatives told us they felt able to raise any concerns or issues and had the opportunities to attend meetings.

Records showed complaints received were addressed in accordance with the provider’s policies and procedures. Any learning from complaints and concerns was shared with staff to inform their future practice.

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

People told us they had access to the care and support they required and were happy with this. They felt their needs were met and the staff cared and supported them effectively. Records showed people were supported to attend appointments and a range of healthcare professionals visited the home regularly. Records of visits were included in people’s care plans and the staff ensured they followed instructions.

Some people displayed distress and anxiety which sometimes lead to agitation. We saw they had a positive behaviour plan in place, and this was regularly reviewed. The staff team worked with the community mental health team to support people as needed.

Care plans were regularly reviewed to identify any changes in a person’s care needs so the appropriate support could be found if needed. This included making appropriate referrals to external professionals as needed.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. People's care and treatment promoted equality and protected people's rights. People told us they were consulted in relation to their cultural and spiritual needs.

The provider had an equality and diversity policy in place and created a welcoming and inclusive atmosphere for all people and staff, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression. People were consulted in relation to their sexuality needs if they were comfortable discussing these.

People’s care plans indicated they had been consulted in decision making, including whether they preferred to receive care from a male or female care worker. Their care plans reflected people’s physical, mental, emotional and social needs.

The registered manager liaised closely with commissioners in relation to what they wanted the service to provide for people, so that people’s needs would be met effectively.

People had the opportunity to discuss anything of interest during ‘residents’ meetings, such as activities, housekeeping, kitchen, care and maintenance.

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.

People’s end of life wishes were sought and recorded in their care plans, if they were comfortable discussing these. The provider worked in conjunction with palliative care specialists, hospice services, funeral directors and families to deliver compassionate end-of-life care and care after death support.

There were end-of-life assessments in place for people. These included information about the person’s spiritual, cultural or religious needs and any specific wishes should the person enter end of life stage and any advanced decision to refuse treatment and any funeral plan.

Some people had Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) forms in place. These documents record a person's preferences and clinical recommendations for their care during an emergency when they cannot make or express decisions for themselves. These were signed by an authorised clinician.

Some people who were approaching end of life had anticipatory medicines in place, should this be needed. Anticipatory medicines are prescribed in advance to a person to manage potential distressing symptoms that may arise, especially those related to being too weak to swallow or in the last days of life.