You are here

Shenleybury House Limited Good

We are carrying out a review of quality at Shenleybury House Limited. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 12 July 2018

The inspection took place on 14 June 2018 and was unannounced. The inspection was undertaken by an inspector and an assistant inspector.

Shenleybury house is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. They are registered to provide accommodation and treatment for up to 15 people. At the time of our inspection 14 people were accommodated at the home.

At our last inspection on 30 June 2017, we rated the service Requires Improvement. At this inspection, we found evidence that improvements had been made in all areas and the service was rated Good overall. There was no evidence or information from our inspection and on-going monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns.

The home had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.

People told us they felt safe at the service and there were appropriate risk management arrangements in place to help keep people safe. We observed people being supported safely. There was a robust recruitment process in place and sufficient staff members deployed to ensure that people’s needs were met in a timely way.

Staff received an induction to the service when their employment commenced and they continued to receive regular training and updates as required. Staff demonstrated they had the necessary skills and information they needed to support people safely and effectively.

People`s medicines were managed safely by staff who had received training and had their competencies checked. Care plans contained sufficient detailed information to enable staff to support people as they wished. People, where they were able, and or family were involved in the development and review of people's care plans.

People were asked for their consent before they were provided with support. Where people were unable to consent verbally, staff took time to get their consent through other means such as eye contact or body language. The management and staff worked in line with the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) principles and associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards DoLS.

People and their relatives told us staff were kind and caring and we observed staff supported people with compassion and clearly knew people well. Staff were aware of people`s likes, dislikes and preferences and delivered care and support in accordance to people`s wishes.

People were provided with opportunities to engage in social activities of interest to them. The environment and the grounds were well maintained and provided people with opportunities to utilise the surrounding outside areas. People’s bedrooms were personalised and people had their own furniture and soft furnishings as well as family photos and memorabilia.

The registered manager worked tirelessly to ensure people received good care in a homely environment. The management was open, transparent and inclusive and we observed visible and effective leadership within the service. The registered manager was supported by deputy manager who worked well as a team.

The management team provided people with a range of opportunities to provide feedback and comment upon the service; in order to continually make improvements. Records were being developed to make them more robust and consistent. They demonstrated a ‘people first’ approach and improvements required within records did not impact on the care people received. There was a comprehensive range of quality monitoring checks completed with an action plan in place to address any shortfalls.

Inspection areas



Updated 12 July 2018

The service was safe.

People were supported by adequate staff who had been safely recruited.

Staff knew how to recognise and report abuse.

Individual risks were assessed and kept under regular review.

People�s medicines were managed safely.

People were protected from the risk and spread of infection.



Updated 12 July 2018

The service was effective.

Staff received training and supervision to support them in their roles. This helped them to support people effectively.

The service worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the registered manager demonstrated a good awareness of what steps needed to be followed to protect people's best interests.

People were provided with support where needed to have a healthy diet and fluid intake.

People�s health concerns were managed effectively.



Updated 12 July 2018

The service was caring.

People gave positive feedback and confirmed staff were kind, caring and compassionate.

Care was provided in a way which respected people's privacy and promoted their dignity.

People received their care and support from a consistent team of staff which enabled them to build up positive relationships.

People's care records were stored in a lockable office at the service in order to promote their dignity and confidentiality.



Updated 12 July 2018

The service was responsive.

Staff were knowledgeable about people's preferred routines, likes and dislikes, backgrounds and personal circumstances.

Staff provided people with personalised care and support that met their individual needs.

People felt the registered manager listened to their feedback.

People were confident that any complaints and concerns were taken seriously and dealt with appropriately to promote improvement.



Updated 12 July 2018

The service was well-led.

The management of the service was person focused.

There were effective quality assurance processes in place which identified shortfalls.

People were positive about the support they received and the overall management of the service.