Archived: Coppice Close

Updated 17 March 2018

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

This inspection took place on 11 and 12 January. The first day of the inspection was unannounced. On the second day of the inspection the management team, staff and people knew to expect us. The inspection team consisted of two inspectors. Prior to this inspection we looked at information we held, as well as feedback we had received about the home. We also looked at notifications that the provider had submitted. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to tell us about by law. We used all of this information to decide which areas to focus on during our inspection. We did not ask the provider to complete to a Provider Information Return (PIR) prior to this inspection, this is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the home, what the home does well and any improvements they plan to make.

During our inspection we spoke with four people, three relatives, three members of staff, the quality assurance manager and the registered manager. Prior to the inspection we contacted the local authority and subsequent to the inspection a physiotherapist, speech and language therapist, learning disability health facilitator and a GP were contacted for their feedback about the home. Two of these healthcare professionals responded. We reviewed a range of records about people’s care and how the home was managed. These included the individual care records for four people, medicine administration records (MAR), four staff records, quality assurance audits, incident reports and records relating to the management of the home. We observed care and support in the communal lounges and in people’s own bedrooms. We also spent time observing the lunchtime experience people had and the administration of medicines. Some people were unable to verbally communicate with us; therefore we used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

The home was last inspected on 1 December 2015 and received a rating of ‘Good’.

Updated 17 March 2018

The inspection took place on 11 and 12 January 2018. The first day of the inspection was unannounced. On the second day of the inspection the management team, staff and people knew to expect us.

Coppice Close is located in Burgess Hill. The home provides support to people living with a learning or physical disability as well as people living with a condition on the autistic spectrum or an acquired brain injury. 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.” Registering the Right Support CQC policy.

The home accommodated a maximum of sixteen people within four purpose-built bungalows. Each bungalow consisted of people’s own rooms with en-suite facilities, a communal kitchen and lounge area, and there was a large garden that was shared between all four of the bungalows. On the day of our inspection there were seven people living at the home.

The home had a registered manager. A registered manager is a ‘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 home is run. The management team consisted of the provider, a registered manager, a quality assurance manager and senior support workers.

At the previous inspection on 1 December 2015 the home received a rating of ‘Good’ At this inspection, on 11 and 12 January 2018, we found that the home remained ‘Good’.

People, relatives and healthcare professionals told us that people were safe. Comments from relatives included, “I would know if my relative was not happy or felt unsafe” and “My relative has not displayed any negative behaviour which tells me they must be safe and comfortable”. The provider had ensured that staff were suitably trained to recognise when people were at risk of abuse and staff demonstrated a good knowledge with regards to the signs and symptoms to look for if they felt that people were at risk of harm. Staff had access to specific training to meet people’s needs, such as positive behaviour support training and supporting people with learning disabilities and autistic spectrum conditions. Relatives told us that they felt that staff had the necessary skills to support their relatives.

People, relatives and healthcare professionals told us that staff were kind, caring and compassionate and our observations confirmed this. One person told us, “10 out of 10”. Comments from relatives included, “The staff team are very good, my relative gets on with most”, “Very good, my relative is very happy” and “My relative enjoys being there”. Another relative described the staff as having “Endless patience”. A healthcare professional told us, “Oh yes, they do their best”.

There was a warm, homely, and friendly atmosphere. This was echoed in comments made by relatives who told us that the home was a “Family environment” and had “A family-home atmosphere”. People told us that they were happy, that they liked the staff and thought that they were fun. People smiled and laughed when telling us about the staff and it was clear that positive and warm relationships had developed and grown. People were supported when they became anxious or distressed and staff took time to support people in the community for drives or to local cafes to reduce their anxiety and escalating behaviours. People were treated with respect and were afforded privacy, their dignity promoted and maintained.

Independence was encouraged and people were supported to undertake daily living skills to encourage their independence. A relative told us, “The food is very good and they involve my relative in shopping and cooking”.

People’s needs were assessed and support was adapted to meet people’s assessed level of need. Care plans were devised to capture people’s abilities, needs and preferences and staff worked hard to ensure that these were incorporated into people’s care. People’s end of life care had been discussed and plans devised to ensure that people’s wishes, at the end of their lives, could be respected and fulfilled.

People and their relatives were involved in discussions about people’s care and were able to make their thoughts and suggestion knows. People were able to make a complaint and those that had been made had been dealt with according to the provider’s policy. People and relatives told us that they would feel comfortable and able to raise concerns without the fear of repercussions. People and their relatives told us that people were asked their consent before staff supported them and our observations confirmed this. The management team and staff had an understanding about the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and had worked in accordance with this.

The provider had a clear set of values which were embedded in the practice of staff. Quality assurance processes and audits monitored the practices of staff and the effectiveness of the systems and processes at the home. When shortfalls were identified and raised with the provider and registered manager they took immediate action to ensure that these were rectified.

People, relatives and healthcare professionals were complimentary about the management of the home. Comments from staff included, “The manager is very supportive, she does a great job of managing things, she works very hard and is very professional”. Another member of staff told us, “It’s miles better, really good now. They [the managers and provider] are awesome”. A relative told us, “The home is well-managed and there has been a vast improvement over the last 12-18 months, it was more chaotic in the past but is much more structured now”. There were links with other external healthcare professionals to ensure that staff learned from other sources of expertise and that people received a coordinated approach to their care.

People’s healthcare needs were assessed and met. People had on-going contact with external healthcare professionals and records showed that staff had been responsive when people’s health had deteriorated. Health action plans (HAP) enabled people’s health to remain a priority and people had been supported to attend healthcare appointments to maintain good health. Staff had adapted their approach and had supported one person, who had a fear of healthcare professionals, to go to the café in the local hospital to enable them to become more familiar with the environment should they ever need to attend in the future. People had their medicines on time and were supported by staff that had received training and who had their competence regularly assessed.

People told us that they enjoyed the food and observations showed that people were provided with choice and could actively participate in shopping for and preparing food.