Archived: Copper Beeches Care Home

Updated 16 April 2019

The inspection: We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team: The inspection team included a lead inspector and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who has used this type of care service.

Service and service type: Copper Beeches is a care home. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection: The inspection was unannounced.

What we did: Before the inspection, we reviewed all the information we held about the service including previous inspection reports and notifications received by the Care Quality Commission. A notification tells us about important issues and events which have happened at the service. The provider had completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is information we request on at least an annual basis about what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

During the inspection we spoke with eight people who used the service and three relatives. We spoke with the registered manager and deputy manager, two assistant unit managers, three care workers and the chef. We reviewed the care records of five people. We also looked at the records for four staff that had been recruited since our last inspection and other records relating to the management of the service such as medicines administration records, audits and staff rotas. Following the inspection, we received feedback from one of the three health and social care professionals we contacted.

Updated 16 April 2019

About the service: Copper Beeches is a care home. It does not provide nursing care. It can accommodate up to 36 people, some of whom could be using the homes ‘short stay’ or ‘interim’ beds. These were beds used to facilitate an early discharge from hospital whilst a package of care, or equipment, was being organised to enable the person to return to their own home. At the time of our inspection, there were 24 people using the service which is located in a residential area, close to the centre of Andover.

People’s experience of using this service: Risks to people’s health and wellbeing had mostly been appropriately assessed and planned for.

Planned staffing levels were usually met and overall people were having their needs met in a safe and responsive manner. The registered manager provided assurances that the numbers of staff deployed would continue to be kept under review to ensure that the deployment of staff facilitated people’s safety and preferences at all times.

Overall the management of medicines was safe although there were some areas where best practice frameworks needed to be further embedded.

Most of the home was visibly clean although we did note some areas where the infection prevention and control measures could be improved.

Accidents and incidents were documented and investigated. They were reviewed monthly for trends and patterns so that remedial actions could be undertaken.

Appropriate policies and procedures were in place which ensured staff had clear guidance about what they must do if they suspected abuse was taking place.

People's capacity to consent to their care had been appropriately assessed.

Overall assessments of people’s needs were suitably detailed and holistic.

Staff were using evidence based guidance to enhance the care provided and to achieve positive outcomes for people.

Staff had received an induction, ongoing training and supervision which helped them to perform their role effectively.

There was a clear focus on the importance of good nutrition.

Overall the design and layout of the home was homely and appropriate for people’s needs.

Where necessary a range of healthcare professionals including GP’s, district nurses, community mental health nurses, chiropodists and occupational therapists had been involved in supporting people to maintain good health.

People continued to be treated with kindness, respect and dignity and had developed strong relationships with people. Staff understood the importance of supporting people to maintain their independence.

Staff had a good understanding of people’s needs and care plans informed staff how they should support people in a way that met their likes, dislikes and preferences and of the things that were important to them.

People were supported to take part in a range of activities which supported them to lead a full and more active life.

There were systems in place to ensure complaints were investigated and responded to.

People's end of life wishes were recorded and staff had training in end of life care, which assured us people's wishes would be respected in their final days and following their death.

The registered manager managed the service well and had nurtured a positive person-centred culture within the home. They knew people well and displayed a commitment to putting person-centred care first and of trying new ways of meeting people’s needs and to improve their quality of life.

There was a clear leadership and management structure in place which helped to ensure that the service could deliver effective care and that staff at all levels were clear about their role and responsibilities.

A range of audits were being undertaken to monitor the effectiveness of aspects of the service including care documentation, infection control and medicines management. Along with other quality assurance systems, these measures demonstrated that there was a culture of developing the service and seeking continuous improvement.

The registered manager and senior team continued to nurture strong links with the local community who were welcomed into the home. This had had a positive impact on people.

Rating at last inspection: At the last inspection in October 2016, we rated the service as ‘Good’. At this inspection we found the evidence did not continue to support a rating of 'Good' in all areas and we have rated the service 'Requires Improvement' in the ‘Safe’ key question.

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection in October 2016.

Follow up: Going forward we will continue to monitor this service and plan to inspect in line with our re-inspection schedule for those services rated good. If any concerning information is received, we may inspection sooner.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk