Archived: Coppice and Oakside Care Home

We found the following examples of good practice.

¿ The registered manager had ensured that any visitors were monitored through a booking system and the use of face coverings. Any professional visitors into the home were subject to temperature checks and a health questionnaire.

¿ There were sufficient staff to support people’s needs and contingency arrangements to use regular staff in the case of annual leave or sickness. This ensured people were supported by a consistant group of staff who knew people well.

¿ There were systems in place to ensure staff used their personal protective equipment appropriately and the provider ensured adequate supplies.

¿ The provider was engaged in testing the staff weekly and whole home testing on a monthly or as required basis. People had their temperatures taken twice daily, this was to ensure any concerns could be responded to swiftly.

¿ Cleaning schedules had been reviewed and appropriate products used to reduce the spread of the virus.

¿ Staff were supported in their role with regular supervision, the registered manager was introducing individual risk assessments to ensure all risk to staff were reduced or managed.

¿ Staff received training and competencies to support their roles. New staff were supported by a mentor scheme and appropriate training.

¿ There was an infection control policy which was updated in line with any new guidance. This was supported by regular audits to maintain standards or drive improvements.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

People’s experience of using this service:

Staff understood how to keep people safe from the risk of avoidable harm, but did not consistently demonstrate this in their care practices. Although the service was kept clean, good food hygiene practices were not always followed. People received their medicines as prescribed, but the management of medicines in stock had not always identified issues, for example, with out of date medicines.

People had a balanced diet, and staff knew how to support people with specific dietary requirements. People were also assisted to attend health appointments, and staff monitored people’s health to ensure they got professional support when this was needed.

People were supported by staff who were kind and caring, and who respected their choices. Staff understood how to provide care to meet each person’s needs and preferences. People were treated with dignity and respect. There were enough staff, and they received training the provider felt necessary to meet people’s needs.

People and their relatives were involved in planning and reviewing care to ensure it continued to meet people’s needs. People were encouraged to maintain their hobbies and interests, and staff supported people with a wide range of activities. The provider had a clear system in place to respond to complaints and concerns.

The provider had effective systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and to drive improvements where needed. The registered managers clearly understood their roles and responsibilities, and worked together as a team.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

More information is in the full report.

Rating at last inspection: At our last inspection the service was rated Good. The inspection report was published on 6 August 2016. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the overall rating of good. There was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns.

Why we inspected: This inspection was part of our scheduled plan of visiting services to check the safety and quality of care people received.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor the service to ensure that people receive safe, compassionate, high quality care. Further inspections will be planned for future dates.

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 Coppice and Oakside comprises of two purpose built bungalows in the town of Ilkeston. They have a private garden which people can access from the rear of the bungalows.

People were supported to be safe at the service and staff had received training to enable them to know how to raise any concerns. Risk assessments had been completed to cover all aspects of the environment and to maintain people’s safety when outside the service. Other risk assessments had been completed to support the individual’s independence and provide guidance and techniques to enable this to happen.

There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs and we saw they had a flexible approach to the support they offered. Staff employed to work at the service had received the appropriate checks to ensure they were suitable. Medicines were administered safely by staff who were trained and regular audits ensured that any errors were addressed.

Staff had received a range of training to support the needs of the people. Additional training was available to increase the staff’s knowledge and support their career development. There was a clear induction for all new staff which involved training and shadowing with experience staff.

Staff understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and acted in people’s best interests. Where people did not have the capacity to make a decision, they were supported through best interest assessments.

People could choose what food they wished to eat. Where people had specialist diets these had been provided and when required specialist advice had been sought. Referrals to other health professional had been made to ensure the people maintained good health and well-being.

The staff had established positive relationships with the people to provide an individual level of care. Relationships with families had been promoted and they felt able to visit anytime. People’s dignity was respected and the staff had developed ways to promote their understanding of dignity. Staff told us they felt supported by the management team and received supervision that enabled the development their role.

The care plans provided details about people’s preferences and how they wished their care to be provided. Activities were available to suit either a structured programme or a flexible approach to meet people’s interests and hobbies.

There was a complaints policy in place which was available and any concerns had been addressed. The provider had completed a range of audits and quality checks to ensure the ongoing needs of the people had been met and any improvements had been made.

The action plan and additional evidence we received from the provider in December 2013 and in March 2014 showed that the service was now sending in notifications of deaths and other important events, as legally required, and that care and support records were up to date.

People using the service appeared relaxed and calm in their surroundings. One person told us 'I like living here' and they confirmed they liked the staff and that they received the right support.Relatives we spoke with said they were very pleased with the care provided to their family member. One said 'I'm very pleased with the set up there' and another told us 'We're delighted with the service, it's so friendly'. They confirmed they were kept informed of any health issues.

External health and social care professionals also told us that the service acted on their advice and said health needs were addressed well.

We found there were sufficient staff on duty to meet people's needs and there was a proper procedure for dealing with any complaints.

We found the service was not notifying the Care Quality Commission of significant events in the service as legally required and we also found that essential support records were out of date, which meant there was the potential for unsafe care.

People were supported in promoting their independence and community involvement. We saw that they were given options in how they utilised their time.

People using the service appeared relaxed and contented in their surroundings. One person told us 'It's lovely here' and they confirmed they liked the staff and that they received the right support. Relatives we spoke with said they were very satisfied with the care provided to their family member and that they were kept informed of any health issues. Appropriate arrangements were in relation to the recording of medicine and they were handled appropriately.

We found that staff were well supported and received relevant training and that there were sufficient staff on duty to meet people's needs.

We saw that people who use the service, their representatives and staff were asked for their views about their care and treatment and they were acted on and that audits of key health and safety areas were carried out and any issues were addressed.