Shire Oaks Court

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

People were supported to receive safe care. Although some care plans were not in place or reflective of individual risks, people were safe, and staff knew the risks well. Medicines were managed in a safe way; infection control procedures were followed, and the homes environment was clean, safe and maintained. The provider ensured lessons were reviewed and learnt when incidents occurred. There were enough suitably recruited staff to support 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 raised no concerns around the learning culture within the home. Relatives were aware when incidents had occurred and felt involved and updated.

Leaders were able to tell us about the learning culture in the home. The registered manager told us the action that had been taken when incidents occurred. They talked, us though incidents that had occurred and how they had used this information to make changes. They told us about an incident where equipment had not effectively alerted staff, to a concern. They told us how they had investigated, shared the outcome with staff and added further checks on this equipment to their daily walk around. They said, “This has reduced the risk for this person, and we have learnt a lot from this.” Staff confirmed to us this information had been shared with them. One staff member said, “Always learning, if something has happened, we get briefed, we get internal memos as well.”

There were effective systems in place to ensure people were safe. When incidents had occurred these had been recorded, investigated and reviewed to identify any learning. When need changes had been made to people’s care to reduce the risk of reoccurrences.

People and relatives raised no concerns. A relatives talked us through the process of when their relation started using the service, they explained this was a positive experience.

The registered manager was able to tell us about the process when someone started using the service. They explained that an internal assessment team would go out and review the needs of the person and completed a comprehensive assessment. They told us, “It’s a good system, its effective and works”. Staff were aware of this and felt people’s needs had been assessed before moving into the home. One staff member said, “We get all the information we need about people before they move here, the assessments are good and detailed.” Both staff and leaders were able to tell us how other professionals were involved with this process to ensure people received the care they needed.

As part of this assessment, we asked for feedback from the local authority and the integrated care board. The feedback was generally positive. No concerns were identified with people’s safety.

There were systems in place to ensure people were assessed before they started using the service, we saw that a plan of care was then put in place based on people’s individual needs.

People and relatives raised no concerns about safety. One person said, “The good thing about this place is I feel safe here.”

Staff were able demonstrate an understanding of safeguarding. One staff member said, “Its everyone’s responsibility. We have training and are able to share our concerns. We are aware what to do when needed and the signs of abuse to look out for”. Staff told us they had received training and felt action would be taken when needed. The registered manager was able to talk us through the processes in place to manage safeguarding concerns within the home. They told us how they had used previous safeguarding's to make improvements in the home.

We did not observe anything of concern during our site visit. The care and support people received was safe.

There were procedures in place to identify and report safeguarding concerns. When needed, these procedures were followed so that appropriate action could be taken to keep people safe. Staff had received training and understood when people may be at risk of abuse. When needed we saw Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were in place. There was a system in place to monitor these to ensure they were in date and reviewed when needed.

People and relatives raised no concerns with how people’s risks were managed. A relative said, “Yes, my relation is definitely safe here.”

Staff and leaders understood people’s risks and the support they needed. They were able to tell us how risks were managed in the home. They were aware of people’s individual risks, how this was assessed and how they supported people to remain safe. One staff member told us, “We can see care plans and risk assessments for people, these are updated if something changes, or something happens”. The registered manager told us they had identified this as an area of improvement, they told us they were aware that some care plans and risk assessments were not in place, or needed reviewing, they told us they had an action plan in place for this and were working with their internal quality team to make improvements.

We did not observe anything of concern during our site visit. The care and support people received was safe. Staff knew people well and were responsive to their needs.

We found some people did not always have care plans in place when needed. Other care plans and risk assessments in place were not always individual. For example, one person’s risk were all recorded on the same risk assessments and had the same level of risk. Some of these risks were no longer applicable and some of these were happening frequently, this meant these risks had not been properly identified and assessed. Other care plans and risk assessments were in place, individual and reviewed when needed.

People and relatives raised no concerns about the environment and the safety of this. A relative told us, “All the equipment is there, and if it isn’t, they will get it for my relation.”

The registered manager told us how the safety of the home was monitored through checks, this included a daily walk around they completed along with checks completed by the maintenance team. Staff we spoke with raised no concerns with the environment and felt the home and equipment was safe to use.

We saw the home was in a good state of repair. We saw equipment had been tested to ensure it was safe to use, this included moving and handling equipment.

There were processes in place to identify any concerns with the environment. The maintenance team completed audits on the environment and as part of ‘service user’ of the day checks were completed on people’s individual rooms and equipment. When concerns had been identified action had been taken to make improvements.

The majority of people and relatives raised no concerns around the staffing levels in the home. On person said, “Yes, there are enough staff. Help is always around.” A relative told us, “There’s plenty of staff.” Although one person commented that they did not know what qualifications staff had, the majority of people and relatives felt staff knew them well and were able to meet their needs. One person said, “They know me well.”

Both staff and leaders felt there were more than enough staff available for people. The registered manager was able to tell us when people needed various levels of support including 1 or 2 staff to support them. They confirmed there was a system in place to ensure there were enough staff available for people. Staff confirmed there were enough of them, 1 staff member said, “More than enough, too many if anything.”

We saw there were enough staff available for people. Most people received 1 to 1 support, and this was provided for them.

There were enough safely recruited staff available to support people. There was a system in place that ensured the correct number of staff were available for people. Staff had received training to ensure they had the skills and knowledge to support people. This included training that was specific to people’s individual needs. We reviewed the training matrix, and this confirmed staff had received training that was up to date. Staff had received the relevant pre-employment checks before they could start working with people to ensure they were safe to do so.

People and relatives raised no concerns about the home. A relative commented, “It’s very nice and clean.”

Staff and leaders raised no concerns around Infection control and prevention (IPC). The registered manager told us they monitored IPC through audits and if anything had arisen in between then they would action this. They told us they were working the local authority to complete hand hygiene audits for staff.

The home was clean. There were staff available throughout the site visit who were responsible for this.

There was a system in place to ensure IPC was monitored in the home, this included checks as part of daily walk arounds and monthly reviews and audits. When concerns with the environment had been identified action had been taken to address these concerns.

People and relatives raised no concerns with how medicines were managed. One person told us, “I am given medicines and there are no problems.” A relative said, “My relation gets their medicines regularly.”

The nursing team were able to talk us through the process of managing people’s medicines. The clinical lead explained the process of managing people’s medicines, what they did if people refused medicines and the action they would take if an error occurred. They felt medicines were managed well within the home and said, “The electronic system is effective.” The registered manager confirmed staff received training and regularly had their competency checked. Staff told us they felt confident to administer medicines to people, were aware of the process and had no concerns.

Records we reviewed confirmed people received their medicines when needed. We saw when people had ‘as required’ medicines such as pain relief there were plans in place offering staff guidance as to when people may need these medicines. We saw records that confirmed people received these when needed. Staff had received training, and their competency was checked to ensure they were safe to administer medicines to people. Medicines were stored and managed in a safe way.