CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Copper Beeches Lodge
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Staffing levels restricted people's choices in the evenings and at weekends. Four staff had not completed safeguarding training, and some risk assessments lacked person-centred detail.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- Care plans did not consistently support independence, skills-building or people's longer-term goals. Staff had not always completed relevant training before supporting people.
- Caring?
- Requires improvement
- Staff were kind and understood people's communication needs, but people were not always supported to build independence. Medicines were given in the kitchen rather than in a private place.
- Responsive?
- Requires improvement
- Activities were often organised for groups rather than individuals, and people did not always go out as frequently as they wanted. Care plans did not clearly describe what a meaningful life looked like for each person.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The provider and manager had not embedded best practice or used quality checks to identify important improvements in people's quality of life. The service did not have a clear vision for supporting people to achieve the best outcomes.
What inspectors found, October 2022
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind staff, but person-centred care, staffing and governance were not consistently strong.
This was the first inspection since the current provider registered the home. Two inspectors visited without notice on 15 September 2022. They reviewed care and medicines records, management records and infection control. They spoke with people, staff, a health professional and relatives.
All five areas were rated Requires Improvement. The home was clean and well maintained, and staff generally knew people well and treated them kindly. However, people did not always have enough individual choice, independence or meaningful activities.
Inspectors found shortfalls in staffing, staff training, risk assessments, medicines privacy and the way care plans and quality checks were used. They found breaches of the rules on person-centred care and good governance.
The provider told inspectors that it had recruited more staff, updated care planning and risk assessment systems, changed medicines arrangements and was making activities and mealtimes more individual. These changes were reported by the provider after the inspection and had not yet been fully assessed by inspectors.
Kind and understanding staff
People received kind care, and staff knew how to communicate with them and respond when they were distressed.
“People received kind care from staff who responded to requests for support.” from the report
Communication support
People had communication plans, and staff understood their individual ways of communicating.
“People had individual communication plans that detailed effective and preferred methods of communication.” from the report
Clean and safe environment
The home was clean, well maintained and adapted to people's needs. People could personalise their rooms.
“People's care and support was provided in a safe, clean, well-maintained environment and people were able to personalise their rooms.” from the report
Health care links
The home worked with health professionals and kept health action plans and hospital passports to explain people's needs.
“A healthcare professional confirmed staff recorded information required to monitor people's health and followed advice to improve people's health.” from the report
Limited individual choice and independence
seriousPeople were often supported as a group rather than as individuals. Their care plans did not consistently include personal goals, skills-building or meaningful activities.
“The model of care and setting did not maximise people's choice, control and independence.” from the report
Staffing and training gaps
needs fixingThere were fewer staff in the evenings and at weekends, which restricted people's freedom to go out. Four staff had not completed safeguarding training, and some staff had not completed relevant training before supporting people.
“The provider had not always deployed enough staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Weak care planning and risk information
seriousRisk assessments and care plans did not always give staff enough individual information about how to support people safely and promote positive risk-taking.
“Care and support plans were not holistic, or strengths based.” from the report
Privacy and respectful records
needs fixingPeople received medicines in the kitchen rather than privately. Some records used language about people that inspectors said was not respectful.
“People did not receive their medicines in private.” from the report
Quality checks did not identify key problems
seriousAudits did not focus enough on individual outcomes, independence or quality of life. This meant important improvements were not identified.
“The provider did not have a clear vision for the direction of the service which demonstrated an understanding of how to support people to achieve the best outcomes possible.” from the report
- 01How many staff are now available in the evenings and at weekends, and how does this support each person's individual plans?
- 02Have all staff completed safeguarding, communication and Mental Capacity Act training before working with people?
- 03How does each person's current care plan set out their goals, skills-building, positive risk-taking and meaningful activities?
- 04How are medicines now given privately and in a way that supports each person's choice and independence?
- 05What evidence can you show that the new audits and action plan have improved people's individual experiences and community access?
This was an unannounced first inspection covering all five key questions and infection prevention and control; the previous provider's Good rating from 2017 was not the rating for this newly registered service. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 October 2022 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 Copper Beeches Lodge
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- October 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- October 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2021
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 July 2021.
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
10 live-in carers within about two hours of Cornwall
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 £1,200 a week. 8 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“He had been a little anxious before she arrived, but has since stated that he would be very happy for her to care for him again”
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.