CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Cooper House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, September 2019
Cooper House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care, but some medicine, fluid and staff records needed improvement.
This was a planned inspection. One inspector visited on 28 August 2019 without notice and returned on 29 August 2019 with notice. They spoke with people, relatives, and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicine, staff and management records.
The home was supporting 28 people and could support up to 32. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment checks, clean surroundings, suitable care plans and trained staff. People were supported with food, healthcare, activities, family contact and end of life care.
People were treated with kindness and their privacy, dignity and choices were respected. The home had systems to learn from incidents and monitor quality. However, records for prescribed skin creams and fluid intake were not always completed consistently, and some staff records did not contain a full work history.
The overall rating was Good. Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Good. This was the same overall and individual rating as the previous inspection, published on 24 December 2016.
Protection from abuse
Staff had safeguarding training and understood how to report concerns. The home had safeguarding policies and procedures.
“People were protected from the risk of abuse. Care staff had received safeguarding training and the provider had safeguarding policies and procedures in place.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People were supported with kindness and compassion. Their privacy, dignity, independence and equality needs were respected.
“People were treated with kindness and compassion by the care staff. The provider ensured that people's equality and diversity needs were met.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans covered people's personal care, health, nutrition and interests. Staff followed them and responded to changes in people's needs.
“People's care plans contained personalised information. Care plans were comprehensive and covered areas such as personal care, health care, nutritional needs and interests.” from the report
Good management oversight
The home used quality checks and a continuous improvement plan. Managers reviewed incidents and worked with healthcare professionals and families.
“An effective quality assurance system was in place to monitor the quality of the service.” from the report
Skin cream records
needs fixingThe recording of prescribed skin creams was not consistent. A better recording system was being introduced.
“The registered manager had identified that the recording of when people had their prescribed skin creams applied was not carried out consistently.” from the report
Fluid intake records
needs fixingRoutine records of people's fluid intake were not always completed. The manager said daily checks would be introduced.
“However, the routine recording of people's fluid intake was not being consistently done.” from the report
Incomplete employment histories
minorNot all staff records contained a full work history. The manager said they would obtain the missing information.
“However, not all staff records included a full work history.” from the report
Limited activity variety
minorActivities were provided, but staff said they wanted to increase their variety and frequency. People said they enjoyed art and music activities, which were occasional.
“Care staff told us they would like to increase the variety and frequency of activities.” from the report
Low survey response
minorThe home used an annual satisfaction survey, but response rates had been low in previous years. Managers were looking at other ways to gather feedback.
“Response rates had been low in previous years and the registered manager was looking into other ways of obtaining feedback.” from the report
- 01How are you now recording and checking prescribed skin creams?
- 02How do you monitor people's fluid intake, and what happens if records are incomplete?
- 03Have all current staff files been updated with full employment histories and the required checks?
- 04What activities are now available, and how often do they take place?
- 05How do you collect feedback from people and relatives if they do not complete the annual survey?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including both the care provided and the care home premises. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 September 2019 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, December 2016
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with the complaints process not always fully explained.
This was an unannounced inspection on 9 November 2016. Inspectors returned on 10 November 2016, announced, to complete their work. This was the first inspection since the home registered in February 2015.
The home provided residential care without nursing for up to 32 people. All 32 places were occupied during the inspection. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff, healthcare professionals and managers. They observed care and reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff files, training records, complaints and quality checks.
Inspectors found that people were safe, supported by trained staff and received their medicines as prescribed. Staff were kind, respected people's choices and dignity, and supported individual interests, family contact, faith and independence. The home was rated Good in all five areas: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led.
Safe care and staffing
Inspectors found that staff understood safeguarding and that risks, medicines, equipment and staffing were managed safely.
“People's safety and welfare was promoted by the staff.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff built positive relationships, noticed how people communicated and protected their privacy and dignity.
“Staff had developed positive professional working relationships with people which was supportive and promoted people's wellbeing.” from the report
Personalised support
Care was based on people's preferences, interests, faith and lifestyle. People were supported to stay independent and remain in contact with family and friends.
“People's care was personalised and centred on their individual preferences and lifestyle choices.” from the report
Strong management
The home used audits, meetings, surveys and care reviews to monitor quality and make improvements.
“The provider's quality assurance systems were robust and the proactive approach to good governance meant information gathered through quality audits was used to continually develop the service.” from the report
Complaints information
minorThe complaints procedure was displayed and people felt able to complain, but some people said it had not been fully explained to them.
“Although some people told us that the complaint procedure had not been fully explained they were confident to complain.” from the report
- 01How will you explain the complaints procedure to my relative and to our family?
- 02How would you support my relative's particular risks, such as falls, mobility needs or health conditions?
- 03How will you involve my relative and family in reviewing and changing the care plan?
- 04What activities, faith support and community visits could be arranged around my relative's interests?
- 05How will you make sure medicines are given at the right times and recorded correctly?
This was a full inspection covering all five key questions, with an unannounced visit on 9 November 2016 and an announced return on 10 November 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 December 2016 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Cooper House
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- September 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 February 2015.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Leicester
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £980 to £1,270 a week. 83 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
“Tino was the most wonderfully rounded, empathetic and intuitive person. He not only developed a great relationship with Neville but also had a great working relationship with our existing carer.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.