The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Shouldham Hall Nursing Home

New Road, Shouldham, Norfolk, PE33 0DF (01366) 347276

Provided and run by:
Shouldham Hall (Registration) Limited

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

29 August 2013

During a routine inspection

Systems and appropriate care practices were in place that respected people's choices and decisions.

People said that they were well looked after and that the home was, 'Welcoming'. People were provided with safe and appropriate support and care. However, improvements are needed to improve the quality of social activities, in particular for some of the people who are living with dementia.

Significant improvements had been made regarding the safety, accessibility and presentation of the inside and outside of the home. People now had access to safer seating areas outside of the home. Redecoration of large areas of the home had been carried out. However, improvements are still needed to improve the safety, maintenance and presentation of the premises.

People were provided with a range of equipment that supported their comfort, support and health needs. People were protected from the use of unsafe equipment.

Members of staff were liked by people who used the service. There was a sufficient number of nursing and care staff employed to meet the current needs of people living at the home. Members of staff said that they liked their job, which they said they found rewarding.

Quality assurance systems were in place although improvements are needed to ensure that people were protected from health and safety risks associated with falls and inadequately maintained and unsuitable premises.

12 February 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

People that were spoken with, and who were able to tell us, said that staff had treated them in a respectful way.

Improvements had been made to ensure that people's dignity and privacy were respected all of the time. Staff knocked on people's doors before entering. People's clothing was appropriately protected from spillage of food and drink and now kept in a wearable condition. We did not see any person wearing clothes that may have belonged to another person.

All of the people that were spoken with, and who were able to tell us, said that they were satisfied with the standard and quality of care that they had received.

The standard of people's personal care had improved. Staff provided people with appropriate care and attention. In addition, improvements were made to ensure that people's support, care and treatment minimised risks and promoted the health and well being of people who used the service.

People lived in a clean home. Improvements were made regarding the cleanliness and infection control procedures.

People who we spoke with said they liked their own room. One person told us that they liked the sitting and dining room.

Progress had been made to improve the maintenance of the premises. Remedial action had been taken to ensure that people's rights to dignity and privacy were valued. However, although arrangements for improvements of the premises were in place, some parts of the home continued to be unsafe and unsuitable for people to access.

10, 17 October 2012

During an inspection looking at part of the service

People's dignity and privacy were respected some of the time. However, staff failed to knock on people's doors before entering. Also people's clothing was not always protected from spillage of food and drink or kept in a wearable condition. In addition, at least one person's clothes were worn by another person.

People's standard of personal care was adequate. Staff provided people with appropriate care and attention most of the time. However, improvements were needed to ensure that people's support, care and treatment minimised risks and promoted the health and well being of people who used the service.

People were now receiving adequate amounts of food and drink.

Improvements had been made to ensure that vulnerable people were protected from the risk of abuse.

People lived in a cleaner and fresher smelling home. However, improvements were needed in the cleanliness and infection control procedures.

Improvements had been made to ensure people were protected against the risks associated with the unsafe use and management of medicines.

Progress had been made to improve the maintenance of the premises. However, some parts of the home were unsafe and unsuitable for people to access. Some areas also required attention to ensure people's rights to dignity and privacy are valued.

People were safer due to improved staffing numbers and training of staff.

Adequate quality assurance systems were in place to improve the standard and quality of service provided.

21 May 2012

During an inspection looking at part of the service

The people we spoke with during our inspection on 21 May 2012 had complex needs and most were not able to verbally communicate their experiences of the service. Those who could told us that they were happy living at Shouldham Hall. We also spoke with a relative of a person using the service, who told us that they thought there had been improvements in the service. To help us to understand the experiences of other people using the service we made observations of how staff interacted and supported people with their health, care and welfare needs.

13 February 2012

During an inspection looking at part of the service

People with whom we spoke were not able to verbally communicate their experience of the service. We spent time with people and made observations of their experience of living in the home and of how well staff interacted and supported people with their health, care and welfare needs. We also spoke with some relatives who were visiting during our visit. One relative told us that their relative had to wait a long time for assistance to go to the toilet and often it was too late by the time staff responded. They also told us that they visited frequently and often found that there were offensive odours. Another relative told us that they visited regularly and would often find their relatives face and hands were dirty and their hair not combed. One of those relative also said that they were not happy with the care that their relative received and did not feel that their needs were always met. Another person told us that they thought the staffing levels were too low and as a result, their relative did not have their needs met as they should.

30 December 2011

During an inspection looking at part of the service

During our inspection we focussed mainly on Bexwell wing, which is an area of the home where people living with dementia are accommodated. The majority of the people living there are unable to verbally express their opinion about their experience of the service. We spent the majority of our time in the communal areas observing people's experiences and taking note of their psychological and physical wellbeing at certain times of the day. This enabled us to assess how well people's needs were being met.

13 October 2011

During an inspection looking at part of the service

During our visits we were not able to speak with people about their experience of the service due to either their frailty or their ability to communicate those experiences to us verbally. However, we spent time with people observing their experiences, watching their responses to the care received and we looked at how well staff were meeting people's needs.

9 August 2011

During an inspection looking at part of the service

The majority of people with whom we spoke were not able to tell us about their experience of the service they received. However, we spoke with a visiting relative who said they were not happy with the care provided and did not think the care was good. One other person told us that they repeated had to ask staff to get what they wanted. They also said that they felt staff were not adequately trained to do the job.

We made observations of people's experience of the service. We found that people did not experience a clean, homely environment in which to live. People were not being adequately supported by staff and at times we observed some people to be distressed or experiencing conflict with other people using the service which placed them at risk.There was a lack of stimulation and occupation, some people were asleep and others walking aimlessly with nothing to focus on.

When we observed over the lunchtime period we found that people did not benefit from a well supported mealtime experience. In some cases people did not receive the support from staff to experience an adequate dietary intake.

21 March 2011

During an inspection in response to concerns

People told us that they thought the staff were kind and gentle and that they can go to bed when they liked. They told us that, when they press the emergency buzzer, staff respond quickly. One person told us that they would like to wash themselves and make their own bed but that staff did it all for them.

People had differing views of the home with regard to its cleanliness, with one person stating that it was 'delightful' but another person saying that it was often smelly and dirty, with stale food deposits left on the furniture.

There were a range of opinions with regard to the standard of meals provided, with one person saying that they were 'alright' but another person saying that they couldn't eat the pudding as the fruit was not cooked properly.

People generally felt safe and protected and they felt that there were enough staff around to help them, although they also stated they were quite independent and therefore did not require much support.