Archived: Sherwood House

The last inspection took place on 19 May 2014 when we found no breaches of Regulation.

Sherwood House is a care home providing accommodation and personal care for up to 35 older people. At the time of the inspection 29 people were living at the home. Some of these people were having a temporary stay at the service and were due to return home or were making enquiries about a more permanent stay. Some people were living with the experience of dementia. The service did not employ nursing staff and any specific nursing needs were met by visiting community nurses. Sherwood House is managed by the Walton-on-Thames Charity, a charitable organisation set up to provide support and care for people living in the Walton-upon-Thames area. Sherwood House is the charity's only residential home; however they also provide support within two sheltered housing schemes.

There was 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People told us they were happy at the home and liked living there. They found the staff kind, caring and supportive. People told us they would recommend the home to others.

People were sometimes placed at risk because the provider had not always assessed, recorded or monitored.

Although people found the staff kind and caring, we observed some care which did not show people respect. On some occasions the staff were focussed on the task they were performing rather than the person they were caring for.

People with dementia and complex social and emotional needs did not always receive the care and support they needed to meet these needs.

The records of care provided were not always accurate or up to date and therefore the provider was unable to monitor whether this care had met their needs.

People received medicines as prescribed but some of the practices around medicine recording, storage and administration were not always safe.

You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

The staff were appropriately trained, supported and employed in sufficient numbers to meet people's needs.

The manager and provider were responsive to feedback from people who used the service, staff and others and had taken action to improve the service when problems were identified.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, their relatives, and the staff supporting them and from looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People were treated with respect and dignity by the staff. People told us that they felt safe living at the service. One person told us, 'Staff here are very, very good, they are very caring and they are excellent.'

The registered manager set the staff rotas to show they took people's care needs into account when making decisions about the numbers, qualifications, skills and experience of staff required. This helped to ensure that people's needs were always met.

Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs were assessed and they and their relatives were involved in annual reviews of their care plans. Records showed that people had access to healthcare professionals as and when required.

The registered manager and staff worked with other care agencies when transferring a person to another service.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that staff were patient and gave encouragement when they supported people. People told us, 'Staff always help me, they are here all the time.' People told us that the staff were very good.

People's likes, dislikes and religious needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes.

Is the service responsive?

People took part in a range of activities in and outside the service regularly. People said they could make choices about the activities they wanted to do.

The provider listened to what people had to say about the service because they asked people and their relatives for their views about the service.

Is the service well-led?

The service had a system in place to monitor the quality of the service provided. We saw that the service maintained records of accidents and incidents. We saw that the registered manager had a book to record complaints received at the service. We saw that no complaints had been received.

People who used the service told us they were happy living at the service. People told us they had a care plan, but not all people were interested in the contents because, 'Staff were very caring and they look after us really well. They are always available when we need them.'

People who used the service told us they could make decisions for themselves. For example, one person told us, 'Staff would ask for my consent before they would help me with my personal care needs.'

People told us that the food was always good and they were provided with a choice of menu at every meal. One person told us, 'I am always provided with two choices of meals and I could ask for a different meal if I did not like the ones on offer.'

People told us that the home was always clean, tidy and never had any malodours. One person told us, 'My bedroom is always cleaned every week; this includes the changing of my bed linen and a good dusting of the shelves and windows.'

We found the service was compliant with the eight outcomes we looked during this review.

Relatives whom we spoke to and people who used the service told us that home was always very clean, tidy and there had never been any bad smells at the home. Relatives told us that they had been involved with the pre dmission assessment for their relative from which a care plan had been produced.

We observed people who used the being care for in a respectful manner and staff were interacting with people. People could be at risk because the provider did not have an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received. People were not protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment because care plans did not include all the information that had been identified during the pre admission assessment that had been undertaken on admission to the service.