We carried out a review of the data available to us about Sharnbrook Care Home Limited on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Sharnbrook Care Home Limited, you can give feedback on this service.
Sharnbrook Care Home Limited is a residential care home that provides personal care for up to 24 people. The service supports older people, including those with physical disabilities and/or living with dementia.
We found the following examples of good practice.
Robust visiting arrangements were in place. The registered manager reported these had been well received by relatives and friends. It had been agreed that visits were to be by appointment only and take place in the garden, with no access to the building. Personal protective equipment (PPE) and sanitising equipment were provided, temperatures taken, and health screening completed. Good communication and signage meant these measures were understood and followed.
The building was observed to be clean throughout and we identified no concerns in relation to infection control or hygiene.
Risks to people and staff in relation to their health, safety and wellbeing had been appropriately assessed.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
Sharnbrook Care Home Limited is a residential care home that was providing personal care to 22 adults and older people at the time of the inspection.
People’s experience of using this service
People were very happy living at Sharnbrook Care Home Limited because they felt safe and all their needs were met by kind and caring staff. Relatives were pleased with the service provided to their family members and staff enjoyed working at the home.
Everyone we spoke with praised the registered manager and agreed that she was approachable, knowledgeable, fair and did her job well. A staff team who worked well together supported the registered manager. The provider employed enough staff to make sure people’s needs were met in a timely way. The provider had designed a recruitment process to make sure they only employed suitable staff.
The staff team was committed to providing a high-quality service and keeping people safe. They had undertaken training in a wide range of topics so that they were skilled and knowledgeable to effectively meet people’s needs. Staff understood their responsibilities to report any concerns.
Staff encouraged people to be as independent as possible and respected people’s privacy and dignity. All staff welcomed relatives and visitors warmly and treated them as part of ‘the family’.
Staff knew people well. They followed the guidelines in each person’s care plan so that they delivered care and support in the way each person wanted. Staff managed the risks to people’s health and welfare well.
The home was clean, fresh and hygienic. Staff used effective infection control measures to protect people from the spread of infection. Equipment was available when needed to help staff support people in a safe way.
Staff organised a range of things for people to do, including trips out and entertainers visiting the home. The cook made nutritious homely meals and external healthcare professionals supported people to maintain their health.
The registered manager actively sought the views of people and their relatives about the running of the home and she dealt promptly with any concerns that people raised.
The provider had a thorough system in place to monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service provided.
More information is in the full report.
Rating at last inspection
At the last inspection we rated this service Good. The report was published on 16 May 2016.
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor this service.
Sharnbrook Lodge is a residential home that provides care and accommodation for up to 24 older people, some of whom may be living with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 22 people living at the home.
The home had 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.
The provider had effective systems in place to ensure people’s safety and to protect them from avoidable harm. Personalised care plans and risk assessments were in place for each individual who lived at the home. These gave staff guidance on how to support people in a consistent way and how to reduce any risk of possible harm. The provider had also put in place health and safety risk assessments connected to the safe running of the home.
Medicines were administered safely and people were supported to access the necessary healthcare services to maintain their well-being.
People had access to nutritious food and drink throughout the day and were involved in deciding what to eat and drink. Those who needed support during meal times were assisted with their meals.
People were supported to maintain their independence and encouraged to pursue hobbies that they were of interest to them. They were aware of the provider’s complaints system and knew who to raise concerns with if they had any.
The provider had an effective system in place for recruiting new staff. There was enough trained and skilled staff to safely meet the needs of the people who lived at the home. Staff understood their job roles and responsibilities and were supported by way of regular supervisions.
The provider had an effective quality monitoring process in place to ensure they were meeting the required standards of care and identify improvements that needed to be made.
Is the service safe?
People were protected by effective staff recruitment systems. Records showed that staff had received Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) training. This meant that staff were provided with the information that they needed to ensure that people were safeguarded.
Is the service effective?
People were satisfied with the care and support they received. No one raised any concerns with us. This was consistent with the positive feedback received from people as reported in the provider's own quality assurance survey. All of the staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about individual people's care needs, and this knowledge was consistent with the care plans in place.
Is the service caring?
People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that care workers showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. People commented, 'I never feel rushed by the staff that help me, they don't do everything for me and help me to do things for myself'. We spoke with four people who used the service. One person said to us, "I am very happy here. Everyone is very kind." Another person said, "The staff are very helpful and this is a beautiful place to live." We observed the care and attention people received from staff. All interactions we saw were appropriate, respectful and friendly and there was a relaxed atmosphere throughout the home.
Is the service responsive?
We saw that care plans and risk assessments were informative, up to date and regularly reviewed. The registered manager responded in an open, thorough and timely manner to complaints. This meant that people could be assured that complaints were investigated and action was taken as necessary. Staff told us the manager was approachable and they would have no difficulty speaking to them if they had any concerns about the home.
Is the service well led?
Staff said that they felt well supported by the manager, there was a positive team ethic and they were able do their jobs safely. The provider had a range of quality monitoring systems in place to ensure that care was being delivered appropriately by staff.
We found staff promoted people's privacy and dignity. Care plans reflected people's wishes and preferences. People said they were provided with choices. One person said, 'We are able to do anything we wish to do.' Another person said, 'Staff always maintain my privacy."
People were complimentary about the care provided. A visitor told us, 'Sharnbrook Care Home is a good home. Staff understand the needs of residents. You never hear the bell ringing for long in here.'
Medicines were managed safely. We found practices and records to be in good order.
We found there were sufficient staff on duty to meet people's needs. Staff had access to a training programme to maintain their skills and knowledge.
We found the provider had systems in place to regularly monitor the quality of service that people received. There was no written action plan in place from the relatives and service user survey that was carried out recently. Environmental audits did not always provide timescales when remedial work had been completed.
For example, we used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us to understand the experience of two people who could not talk with us.
During our visit on 06 June 2012, we spoke to another two people about their experiences and observed the care and support being provided to 17 people in total. We also spoke to three relatives and some members of staff, including the manager.
People told us that the food was good, and that they liked the staff.
However, they also told us that they would like to see people doing more activities.
Our inspection identified that there were a number of issues about the service provided at this home, relating to assessments, care planning and risk assessments; safeguarding; staff training and support; and quality assurance. These are detailed in the report. The inspection also identified that improvements required following our previous inspection in March 2011 had not been sustained.