Archived: Copper Hill Care Home

Updated 26 September 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

The inspection took place on 24 July and 3 August 2018 and was unannounced.

On the first day, the inspection team comprised of two adult social care inspectors, three specialist advisors who were supporting with medicines, nursing care and governance. Three experts by experience also attended on the first day. An expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. All three experts had experience of caring for relatives.

Before the inspection took place, we checked the information that we held about the service and the service provider. This included statutory notifications sent to us by the registered manager about incidents and events that had occurred at the service. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send to us by law.

During the inspection visit we spoke with 21 people who used the service and with 11 relatives. We spoke with the registered manager, the clinical service manager/deputy care home manager, the head of care, the regional quality director, the area director and the hotel services manager. We also spoke with 15 care staff which included unit managers, nursing staff, care staff, activity staff and a cook. We observed care on all five units of the service which included care that was provided in communal areas. We looked at the care records for 12 people and 57 medication administration records (MARs). We also looked at records which related to how the service was managed including staffing, training and quality assurance.

In addition, we used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not speak with us.

Updated 26 September 2018

The inspection took place on 24 July and 3 August 2018 and was unannounced.

Copper Hill Care Home is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Copper Hill is a large nursing home, spread across five separate units located on the outskirts of Leeds city centre. It provides residential services, nursing care services and dementia care services for a maximum of 144 people. This was the first inspection we have carried out at this location since a change to their registration in December 2017. On the first day of our inspection there were 113 people using the service and 115 on the second day.

There is a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are 'registered persons'. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

There were not always enough staff to meet people’s needs. The tool used by the provider to calculate staffing had not ensured there were enough staff on one of the units where people living with Dementia and challenging behaviour received care. Staff who worked on this unit told us there were not enough staff. People and relatives also shared these views about staffing.

Since the change of registered provider in December 2017, the completion of staff supervision and appraisals had varied across the five units. records relating to supervision and appraisals was not always complete. Most staff we spoke with did not think the new policy provided them with enough supervision.

Staff training records showed that not all staff had completed training they required for their role.

There were quality monitoring processes in place. The provider had an overview of audits of the service provision and completed detailed checks around any issues raised, to ensure these were addressed. However, issues we found relating to staffing had not been identified through these processes. This meant they were not robust.

A number of the units had not yet transferred paperwork such as people's care records to HC-One (the new provider) documents. Staff told us they had not been given adequate time to complete this but with new admissions were using the paperwork of the new provider.

The provider had a safe system for the recruitment of staff and appropriate checks were conducted prior to staff starting work, to ensure their suitability for the role.

Medicines were managed safely. Staff were knowledgeable and received training around the management and administration of medicines.

People told us they felt safe. We saw there were measures in place to monitor people's safety, such as observation charts and analysis of falls data to identify and address risks. There were risk assessments in place where needs had been identified, for example when a person was at risk of falls.

Staff understood their responsibilities with identifying abuse and reporting safeguarding concerns.

The home was clean and free from odours throughout. Maintenance checks were completed on the building and equipment, with any areas for repair addressed promptly.

Staff received an induction which included training to help them carry out their roles effectively. Training was updated regularly and staff had their competency checked.

Care plans were written using person centred details, care staff referred to these for guidance and updated them regularly in the event of a person's needs or preferences changing. Records were well documented and there was clear involvement with health professionals in a timely manner when assessed and required.

People were supported to attend healthcare appointments.

People were helped to eat and drink enough to maintain a balanced diet. We received many positive comments about the food and people appeared to enjoy their meals.

Staff adhered to the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and asked for people's consent before carrying out care and support tasks. For people who lacked capacity to make decisions for themselves, best interest decisions were arranged with health professionals and relatives input.

Staff encouraged people to be as independent as they could be and knew people's levels of independence to be able to support them appropriately.

People told us they felt staff were caring, helpful and kind to them. They felt staff respected their wishes and that their privacy and dignity was maintained.

We observed staff to be caring and supportive towards people who used the service. Interactions were friendly and showed us that staff knew people well. People spoke positively about the staff who cared for them.

Policies were in place to support staff in promoting equality and recognising people's diverse needs.

The provider had a policy in place regarding the Accessible Information Standard.

Activities were arranged within the service including exercise, arts and crafts, games and entertainment.

Complaints were responded to thoroughly and efficiently by the management team.

The provider sought feedback from people and their relatives to improve the service.

We received positive feedback about the management team at the service. Staff told us they felt supported and listened to by the registered manager.

We found a breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.