CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Copperfield
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People said they felt safe. Inspectors found suitable risk assessments, enough staff, safe medicines arrangements, completed recruitment checks and a clean, well-maintained environment.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and choices were assessed and care records were individualised. Staff had relevant training and people had choices about food, healthcare and daily support.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind, respectful and familiar with people's needs. People were involved in decisions and encouraged to remain independent.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Support was tailored to people's preferences, communication needs and interests. People took part in meaningful activities, including in the wider community, but some end-of-life wishes were not recorded.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found an open, person-centred culture, regular audits and meetings, and systems for learning from incidents and feedback.
What inspectors found, October 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, although some end-of-life wishes were not recorded.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 30 September 2019. One inspector spoke with five people, staff and two relatives. They reviewed three people's care records, medicines records, staff files and management records.
Inspectors found that people were safe and received kind, respectful care. Staff knew people's needs and routines, supported independence and helped people take part in activities. People and relatives said they trusted the staff and felt the home was well run.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means inspectors found the service was meeting the relevant requirements and providing consistently good care at the time of the visit.
Some records did not include people's end-of-life wishes. The report says some people did not want to discuss this, while the wishes of people who were comfortable discussing it had been recorded.
Kind, familiar staff
People and relatives spoke positively about the staff. Long-standing staff knew people's needs and routines well and had built strong relationships.
“Many staff were long standing employees of the service and knew people's needs and routines exceptionally well.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were involved in decisions about their support and were encouraged to live as independently as possible, without set routines.
“There were no set routines at the service. People were given the autonomy and independence to live their lives.” from the report
Meaningful activities
Staff found out what people enjoyed and supported them to take part in individual activities and activities in the wider community.
“Staff encouraged and supported people to engage in activities which were individualised and meaningful to them.” from the report
Good safety systems
The home used risk assessments, environmental checks, fire checks and medicines checks to help keep people safe.
“Daily counts of medication were undertaken which helped to reduce the risk of medication errors.” from the report
Open management
People, relatives and staff said managers were approachable. The home used meetings, audits and incident reviews to monitor and improve care.
“The registered manager promoted transparency and honesty in the running of the service, and was well respected by people, relatives and staff alike.” from the report
End-of-life wishes
minorSome care records did not include people's end-of-life wishes. The home said some people did not want to discuss this, but it is worth checking how wishes are explored and recorded when people are willing.
“Some records we looked at did not contain details of people's end of life wishes.” from the report
- 01How do you ask people about their end-of-life wishes, and how do you record them if they want to discuss them?
- 02How will you match staff to my relative's mental health needs, routines and preferences?
- 03What activities could my relative take part in inside the home and in the wider community?
- 04How will my relative be supported to manage their own medicines, if this is safe and appropriate?
- 05How are changes in my relative's needs, goals and care plan discussed with them and their family?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises, care, records, medicines, staffing and management systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 October 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, March 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some quality records needing improvement.
Inspectors made an unannounced, comprehensive visit on 27 February 2017 after receiving information of concern. They spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff, the interim manager and the provider. They also observed care and checked care plans, medicines, staff files, training, accidents, finances and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and were happy with the support. Inspectors found suitable staffing, correct medicine records, up-to-date care plans, trained staff and respectful relationships.
The home had previously been required to improve medicine management, risk assessments and Mental Capacity Act or DoLS records. At this inspection, inspectors found these records and processes were in place. They recommended that quality audits should record the actions taken and lessons learned more clearly.
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Medicine records for all eleven people were correct and staff had medicine training.
“The staffing levels were seen to be sufficient at all times to support people and to meet their needs” from the report
Personalised care
The care plans reviewed were current and reflected people's health, preferences and changing support needs. People were involved in decisions about their care.
“The PCCPs were informative and gave a clear picture of the care and support requirements of the people they were supporting.” from the report
Kind and respectful support
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors saw staff communicate calmly, listen to people and respect their privacy and dignity.
“We observed staff and overheard telephone conversations of staff reacting to people calmly and were always reassuring and pleasant.” from the report
Staff training and support
Staff had an ongoing training programme, induction, supervision and annual appraisals. Staff told inspectors that the manager and provider supported them.
“All staff had been provided with supervision meetings by the manager.” from the report
Audit records
needs fixingThe home carried out several audits, but the records did not show clearly what was done afterwards or what had been learned. Inspectors recommended improving this recording.
“The audits showed how the manager and provider had implemented action plans; however there were no documents in place to inform what they had done to evaluate and improve the service.” from the report
Interim management
minorAn interim manager was running the home because the registered manager had not worked there for several months. The provider said the interim manager would register with the CQC.
“At the time of our inspection, there was an interim manager in post as the registered manager had not worked at the service for several months due to ill health.” from the report
Emergency evacuation records
minorPersonal emergency evacuation plans needed dates recording to show when they had been written.
“The personal emergency evacuation plans (PEEPs) were required to have dates recorded to inform when they had been written.” from the report
- 01How do you now record the actions taken after quality audits and the lessons learned?
- 02Who is currently responsible for managing the home, and has the interim manager registered with the CQC?
- 03Are all personal emergency evacuation plans now dated?
- 04How are medicines, risk assessments and Mental Capacity Act or DoLS records checked and kept up to date?
- 05How are people and their relatives involved in reviewing care plans and choosing meals?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions and included records, observations, interviews and a tour of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 March 2017 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 Copperfield
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- October 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 January 2011.
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
40 live-in carers within about an hour of Wirral
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 £1,230 a week. 37 can care for a couple. 8 years' experience on average.
“It was clear that she genuinely cared and her warm approach really helped put our minds at ease.”
“He developed a close affinity with Terence, spending time talking with him before he retired to bed and looking after his needs during the night.”
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.