Skip to content
The Care Home DirectoryEvery care home in England

CQC report explained · a residential care home

What the CQC found at Copper Beech

Goodpublished 18 December 2018, 7 years ago

Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.

The five questions inspectors ask
Safe?
Good
Inspectors found that people were protected from abuse and individual risks. Medicines were given safely, staffing was sufficient, but some fire safety equipment checks were not recorded at the required frequency.
Effective?
Good
Staff had training, supervision and care plans to support people's health and changing needs. The home worked with health professionals and followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act.
Caring?
Good
Staff were described as caring, respectful and knowledgeable about each person. People were supported to make choices, communicate their needs and maintain their independence.
Responsive?
Good
Care was person-centred and plans were reviewed when people's needs changed. Activities, communication and support were adapted to people's preferences, abilities and wellbeing.
Well-led?
Good
The home had an experienced registered manager and systems for audits, feedback and improvement. Staff and families were encouraged to share their views, and the home worked with outside professionals.
The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, December 2018

Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with some fire safety checks not recorded often enough.

This was an unannounced inspection on 20 November 2018. Two inspectors looked at care records, medicines, staffing, training, safety checks and management records. They observed care, spoke with people, staff, managers, a family member and health and social care professionals.

The home supported three people in self-contained flats. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice and staff who understood people's needs and risks. Care was described as kind, respectful and tailored to each person. People were supported with their health, choices, communication, activities and independence.

The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors did identify that some fire safety equipment checks were not recorded at the required frequency. They made a recommendation for the provider to seek guidance and take action.

What inspectors praised
  • Staffing and continuity

    Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs safely. The home mainly used familiar staff and had a stable, experienced team.

    “There were enough staff on duty at all times to meet people's diverse, individual needs safely and effectively.” from the report
  • Kind and respectful care

    Staff knew people well and treated them with kindness and respect. Inspectors saw people who appeared relaxed and comfortable with staff.

    “The committed, attentive and knowledgeable staff team provided care with kindness and respect.” from the report
  • Personalised support

    Care plans reflected people's individual needs, communication methods, choices and abilities. Staff adapted support when people’s health, behaviour or preferences changed.

    “People's care remained person centred and care plans reflected this.” from the report
  • Health and professional support

    The home sought advice from health and social care professionals when needed. Staff communicated with professionals about people's progress and changing needs.

    “The service sought advice from and worked with health and other professionals to ensure they met people's needs.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Fire safety records

    needs fixing

    Some checks, including emergency lighting checks, were not recorded as happening often enough. Inspectors recommended that the provider obtain guidance and take action to make sure checks were completed at the required frequency.

    “some fire safety equipment checks such as emergency lighting were not recorded as being undertaken at the required frequencies.” from the report
  • Training records

    minor

    There had been problems recording completed e-learning training accurately. The manager kept a manual record and the organisation planned to move to a different training system.

    “It was acknowledged that there had been issues with the electronic recording of e-learning training when completed” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01Have all fire safety checks, including emergency lighting checks, been brought up to the required frequency, and how are they recorded now?
  2. 02How do you make sure staff training records are accurate, including e-learning that has been completed?
  3. 03What staffing levels and one-to-one support would my relative receive during the day and at night?
  4. 04How would you record and respond to changes in my relative's health, behaviour, communication or independence?
  5. 05How are families involved in care plan reviews, best-interest decisions and decisions about activities or meals?

This was an unannounced inspection covering all five quality areas and the overall rating, including records for all three people living in the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 December 2018 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.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Copper Beech

3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.

  1. December 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read what inspectors found at Copper Beech →

  2. May 2016Goodup from Requires improvement
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    We are reading this report · the original is on cqc.org.uk

  3. May 2015Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. October 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. May 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. May 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  7. December 2010

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 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.

Next steps

Weigh the report against the rest

Care at home

78 live-in carers within about an hour of Wokingham

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 £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 71 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.

“I can truly say that Peter always put Dad at the centre of everything and I know that they found a great friendship in difficult times.”
Lindsay C., about Peter W.
“Not only has she looked after him beautifully, she has also been great company for him with lively conversation, kindness and humour.”
Clare M., about Zion S.
See live-in carers near WokinghamProfiles, rates and reviews are free to look at.

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.