CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Coopers Mill
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found people were safe, with suitable staffing, safe recruitment, risk assessments and competent medicines practice. Some risk records were not up to date, and clearer arrangements were requested for one person's one-to-one support.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff were trained and supported, people received suitable food and healthcare, and care plans covered their needs. The provider was still developing records to show that decisions made for people lacking capacity were in their best interests and least restrictive.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors found positive, friendly and relaxed relationships between staff and people. People's privacy, dignity, choices and independence were respected.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and people were involved in their support plans. People could take part in work, volunteering, hobbies and community activities, although there were no planned or structured activities in the home at the time.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Leadership and oversight were inconsistent. The provider was recruiting a new registered manager, had not applied to register the additional accommodation, and was still developing systems to monitor the support people received.
What inspectors found, November 2019
Coopers Mill was rated Good overall, but inspectors found the home was not always well-led and rated this area Requires Improvement.
CQC carried out an unannounced inspection over two days in September 2019. Inspectors spoke with eight people living in the home and nine staff. They reviewed care plans, medicines records, monitoring documents and all areas of the home.
The home was rated Good for safe, effective, caring and responsive care. Inspectors found enough suitable staff, safe medicines practice, kind relationships and support that promoted people's choices, independence and community involvement.
The well-led rating fell from Good to Requires Improvement. The provider had not kept fully up to date with best practice, the new accommodation had not been registered, and systems for checking the quality of support were still developing.
The overall rating remained Good, as it had at the previous inspection in November 2016. This means inspectors found the care was generally good, but improvements were needed in how the home was managed and monitored.
Safe medicines and staffing
Inspectors found enough safely recruited staff and saw medicines being administered safely and with dignity.
“Medicines were managed safely and were administered to people when they needed them.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were involved in their care and in decisions about the home. The different buildings allowed some people to move towards more independent living at their own pace.
“People's autonomy and independence was respected, they were involved in both developing their care and support and influenced the running of the home and grounds.” from the report
Kind relationships
Inspectors found staff and people had positive relationships. People said staff respected them and their need for personal space.
“Staff had positive relationships with people and all told us they got on well with staff.” from the report
Personalised communication
The home used easy-read information, signs and pictures to support communication. Care plans could also be updated using speech on tablets.
“We saw staff and people communicating with each other in sign and saw pictorials cues were available to support communication around the home.” from the report
Management and oversight
needs fixingThe provider had not kept fully up to date with best practice and was still developing systems to monitor the quality of support. The registered manager was due to retire and a replacement was being recruited.
“The service was not always well-led.” from the report
Additional accommodation registration
needs fixingPeople were ready to move into additional flats, but the provider had not yet applied to register this accommodation. Inspectors recommended that registration should be completed as soon as possible.
“People were ready to move into the second flats style property but we had not received an application to register the additional accommodation.” from the report
Activities in the home
minorThere was no dedicated activities coordinator and no planned or structured activities taking place in the home. The manager said the provider intended to recruit to this role.
“There were not any planned or structured activities taking place in the home.” from the report
Mental capacity records
needs fixingThe provider had started applying for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and was developing new care plan templates. Inspectors recommended completing assessments to show that decisions were made in people's best interests and in the least restrictive way.
“We recommend the provider ensures assessments are developed for people that support any decisions made.” from the report
Risk records
needs fixingSome risk records did not contain the latest information, although the information was available elsewhere. The management team developed documents during the inspection to address this.
“However, we found some records were not up to date with the latest information which was available elsewhere.” from the report
- 01Has the additional accommodation now been registered, and can you show us the current registration details?
- 02Who is now responsible for managing the home, and how are quality checks carried out?
- 03What planned activities are now available in the home, and is there an activities coordinator?
- 04How are mental capacity and best-interest decisions now recorded for each person?
- 05How do you make sure risk assessments contain the most up-to-date information?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five key questions, with the previous overall Good rating from 22 November 2016 reassessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 November 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, November 2016
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, and said four earlier legal breaches had been fixed.
This was an announced inspection on 26 October 2016. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and a social care professional. They also observed care and checked support, medicines, staffing and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines arrangements, suitable training and kind care. People were supported with eating, drinking, healthcare, activities and making their own choices.
At the previous inspection in November 2015, four legal requirements had not been met. These related to accidents, nutrition and hydration, people's legal rights, and quality checks. Inspectors found that the required improvements had been made by this inspection.
Kind and respectful care
Staff were described as friendly, patient and discreet. They respected people's choices, privacy and dignity.
“We saw that people were being treated with respect and in a caring and kind way.” from the report
Support for choice and independence
Staff helped people make decisions and gently encouraged them to do things for themselves wherever possible.
“People had been gently encouraged to be as independent as possible.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were supported to enjoy chosen hobbies, trips and social activities, and to keep in touch with relatives.
“Records showed and our observations confirmed that each person was being supported to enjoy a range of activities that they had chosen.” from the report
Improved oversight
The home had strengthened its checks after the previous inspection. Inspectors found that problems identified through checks were acted on quickly.
“Records showed that action had quickly been taken when quality checks had identified a problem.” from the report
A medicines error had occurred
needs fixingThe report records one incident since the previous inspection when medicines were not given correctly. Medical advice was obtained promptly, no harm was reported, and extra training and guidance were provided.
“There had been one incident when a person's medicines had not been correctly administered.” from the report
Privacy issue identified during the visit
minorInspectors were concerned that one person's privacy might not always be protected when their bedroom was open. The head of care said steps would be taken promptly.
“We were concerned that this might result in the person's dignity not being fully promoted.” from the report
- 01What checks are now used to prevent another medicines error, and how are staff's medicines skills reviewed?
- 02What procedure do staff follow after an accident, and when would they contact a healthcare professional?
- 03How do you monitor people's weight, eating and drinking if they are at risk of not having enough nutrition or hydration?
- 04How do you check that any restrictions or close supervision are lawful and the least restrictive option?
- 05How would you support my relative if they became distressed, and which activities or communication methods would be used for them?
This was an announced inspection covering all five key questions and the overall quality of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 November 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 Coopers Mill
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- November 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 December 2010.
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
13 live-in carers within about an hour of Norfolk
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 £990 to £1,120 a week. 9 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
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.