Copper Beeches Lodge

Right Support: The model of care and setting did not maximise people's choice, control and independence. People were not supported to be as independent as possible or have as much control over their lives as possible. People spent much of their time in the service or going out as a group. Not everyone had been consulted about, or empowered to identify, any aspirations or goals they had. Where people had identified wishes or goals, these were not usually detailed as part of their planned care and support.

Activities and interests were sometimes delivered in the service rather than finding similar opportunities in the local community.

There was a risk averse culture in the service. This meant people were not always supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff did not always support them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service did not support this practice.

Reasonable adjustments were made for people so they could participate in discussions about their day. People who experienced periods of distress had proactive plans in place which ensured restrictive practices were only used by staff if there was no alternative. Systems were in place to report and learn from any incidents with external professionals.

People's care and support was provided in a safe, clean, well-maintained environment and people were able to personalise their rooms.

Right Care: People did not always receive support that followed best practice and focused on their quality of life. People did not always receive the right support to develop an understanding of their aspirations or goals and live a quality life of their choosing.

There were not consistently enough staff available to provide individualised care. People did not always have the opportunity to undertake activities and pursue interests that were tailored to them as an individual; and were not routinely engaged in trying new activities. People's care plans did not always include information to promote their wellbeing and enjoyment of life.

Positive risk taking was not always encouraged or enabled. Risk assessments were undertaken but these were sometimes basic and lacked individual detail.

People were not always protected from abuse as all staff had not received relevant training.

People received kind care from staff who responded to requests for support.

People were able to communicate with staff and understand information given to them by staff who understood their individual communication needs.

Right Culture: The ethos and values of the service did not consistently enable people to lead confident, inclusive and empowered lives. The manager and provider had not ensured best practice was embedded in the service. This meant people's wishes, needs and rights were not all known by staff or placed at the centre of the service.

Checks and audits were undertaken but often did not review aspects of the service that would highlight actions to enhance people's quality of life.

Staff had received training but did not have a good understanding of best practice models of care. This meant people did not always receive tailored support that empowered them as an individual.

Staff knew and understood people well and cared for them. People and those important to them, including advocates, were involved in reviewing people's care plans.