Shire Oaks Court

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

People’s needs were assessed before they started using the service and care delivered was based on these needs. When needed the principles of Mental Capacity Act were followed. People’s health needs were considered and reviewed. Staff worked with people, those important to them and other health professionals to ensure positive outcomes for people.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People and relatives felt their needs had been assessed. A relative told us, “There was a thorough assessment when my relation first came in.”

The registered manager talked us through the assessments process that was in place for people. Staff felt this was effective. One staff member said, “The pre assessment information is good, its detailed and it identifies people’s risks, so we have a good baseline of people.”

Assessments were completed when people moved into the home and clinical tools were used to identify individual risks to people. People’s health and social needs had been considered in the assessment and care planning process. Communication needs were assessed, and plans were put in place to meet people's needs.

People and relatives raised no concerns with how their care was delivered.

Leaders were confident they delivered evidence-based care. The registered manager told us, “We have our own quality team, they are specialist in all areas for example they are specialist in diabetes. We tap into that team who support with care plans. We can send the care plan and assessments to them to review.” Staff raised no concerns to us.

The service based their care plans and risk assessments on best practice guidance and used clinical tools to ensure people’s needs were met and identified. There was an internal team in place that ensured care plans were written inline with national guidance.

People and relatives raised no concerns with how staff teams and services worked together.

Staff and leaders were able to give us examples of how they worked with other agencies to deliver care. The registered manager told us, “We try to work with a variety of services and professionals so we can get better at what we do.”

As part of this assessment, we asked for feedback from the local authority and the integrated care board. The feedback was generally positive. Where some minor concerns had been identified during a site visit the home had worked to rectify these concerns immediately.

There were systems in place to ensure all teams worked together. Internally there were daily handovers and daily meetings so information about people could be identified and shared. There was evidence the service worked with external health professionals to ensure they were meeting people’s individual needs.

People and relatives raised no concerns with how their health was managed. A relative told us about the range of professionals that their relation had access to.

The registered manager told us about issues they were having with registering new people with a GP. They told us how they were working with the ICB to resolve this issue. They shared with us other instances where they had worked with people to improve their health, this included reducing the amount of care someone needed with their diabetes. They also said, “Someone accessed the dentist last week, that was a positive experience for them.” Staff knew people’s health needs well and were able to tell us examples of this and the support people needed.

People’s health needs were identified, assessed and reviewed. When people needed support from external health professionals there was a system to ensure referrals were made and care plans were updated to reflect any changes or recommendations.

Relatives were able to tell us about positive outcomes for people. One relative said, “The physio is very good, and my relation walks a lot better now.”

Leaders and staff were able to tell us how they had worked with people, their families and other health professionals to improve outcomes for people. The registered manager told us about an instance where physio had worked with someone to improve their mobility and where they had worked with people to reduce the amount of support from staff they received. The registered manager told us about another person who had recently moved on from the home after improvements had been made.

There were processes in place to monitor the care people received, this included reviews of care files, meeting with people and those that are important to them. The staff team worked with people to set goals and there were steps and actions in place to support people to achieve these.

People and relatives raised no concerns around how they consented to care. Both people and relatives felt involved with this and were able to share example to us. One person told us, “Yes they always ask me.”

Leaders and staff understood the importance of gaining consent from people or working in people’s best interests when needed. The registered manager was able to tell us when people had a DoLS in place and what this meant for them, they were aware of any conditions on DoLS people had. They told us capacity assessments and best interest decisions were in place for people and identified when some were being improved.

Capacity assessments and best interest decisions were in place when needed to ensure MCA was applied.