Shipdham Manor

Updated 24 June 2026

About the service

The service is a care home. There were 38 people using the service at the time of the inspection.The service is based over 2 floors and has a large garden, communal areas and a dedicated room for activities.

Who the service is for

The service supports older people and people living with dementia.The service uses a household model of care. People live in small groups that share a kitchen, lounge and dining area. This helps create a familiar home environment where staff can support people in a more personal and flexible way.

This service was previously rated good. We carried out this assessment on 06 July 2026 to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard. Instead, our findings focus on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.

Staffing levels were appropriate but the deployment of staff across other roles impacted on the delivery of the service: For example, planned social activities were not always delivered and hygiene standards were compromised due to a reduction in domestic hours. Concerns were also expressed about laundry. Staff sickness was having an impact on the service; however all the staff were permanent, many with years of experience and no agency staff were used. This helped ensure people received consistent care and support, and the registered manager was responsive to our feedback and deployed staff at the busier times of the day.

Minor issues were identified with medicines, but this did not impact on people’s safety, and this was immediately fed back to the provider to rectify. People were supported to see health professionals such as a doctor when they needed to. Staff were given the training they needed to support people safely and to eliminate risks as far as reasonably possible.

The provider ensured the environment was safe and well maintained. Staff informed us there were regular fire drills, and equipment was tested regularly to make sure it was safe. Fire risks were well managed. We raised concerns about deep cleaning at the service and cleaning of equipment such as wheelchairs which required improvement. However, this has since being addressed by the registered manager.

People were supported to join in activities in line with their needs to reduce the risks of social isolation. Despite staff’s best efforts social opportunities for people had been reduced due to staff sickness. However, we were assured that this was being addressed and the activities provided were thoughtful, well planned and stimulating. Activities included trips out, gender specific activities and therapeutic activities. We saw limited planned activity at the weekends or evening.

Mealtimes were generally well received with the permanent cook showing a good understanding of people’s dietary needs and show plates being used to support people in making appropriate food choices. Staff worked extremely hard to ensure people remained hydrated and we saw staff offering people regular and appropriate snacks. People who had previously been at risk of unplanned weight loss had gained weight recently.

People were supported to make decisions about their care and support, and their care was delivered in line with individual needs and preferences. Measures to reduce the risk of falls were in place, with the use of sensor mats and integral bed rails. Individual pendants might promote people’s safety when actively mobilising especially when in the garden.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found that staff and management worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA)

Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions they had choice, control and freedom over their lives.

Care was delivered by staff who demonstrated kind, caring attitudes towards people they were supporting, and people’s care plans reflected their needs. We identified that staff were not always keeping contemporaneous records of care delivered or food/fluid intake and were not always recording liquid food as fluid intake resulting in some fluid intake records showing under recommended fluid targets.We were informed staff were getting used to a new electronic records system. We saw in practice staff kept people well hydrated, but records did not always reflect this. We also found instances of low fluid intake recorded which did not record liquid foods people had consumed such as soup which would increase people’s recorded intake.

There was a positive culture in the home with staff expressing confidence in the management team and the support they provided. Staff felt valued and supported to be able to deliver care competently and be supported to develop their skills. Staff took pride in their work and demonstrated empathetic care including providing end of life support and treating people like loved ones.

The service used learning from feedback, incidents and reviews to make improvements and support ongoing development. Safeguarding concerns were appropriately managed.

Whilst we did not meet the registered manager whilst carrying out our assessment our request for information was quickly fulfilled and the senior management team supported the assessment.The registered manager has been extremely proactive in demonstrating the strengths of the service, their pride in the staff team and acting on any concerns we had. Staff were recognised for their contribution to care and were supported to go for staff promotions and receive awards for long service.

Updated 24 June 2026

Some people could not directly tell us about their experience. Throughout our visit we observed care that was respectful, caring, and supportive. Staff were attentive and met people’s needs in an unhurried way. People were supported to interact with others and go to the dining room at lunch. Staff provided discreet support for those who needed support with their meals.

The home was well laid out and staff were welcoming. People mostly came out of their rooms and socialised with each other. Relatives told us their impression and experiences of the service were mostly positive “[Family member] was certain that this was the place for him.” Another said,“We couldn’t fault it.’’

The registered manager told us about the role of the key-worker and how staff getting to know people made all the difference. Staff would go out of their way to brighten up people’s day, such as giving a person flowers on their anniversary as this was something the husband had always done and recognising what people wanted to achieve and giving them the opportunity to do so. Close links with family were maintained and there was a friendly, homely atmosphere throughout with people encouraged to socialise and make friends. Background noise was kept to a minimum although we did find the dining room quite noisy which could be difficult for those living with dementia.

Whilst most people were in the communal areas during our visit, some people remained in their room, increasing the risk of social isolation. The activities coordinator did adapt their activity schedule to help ensure everyone received some social stimulation across the day and was supported by care staff to do so. Relatives felt there was enough going on, and there was a regular programme of external events and external entertainers. One relative said, “[ Family member] used to get involved in everything but more recently seems content to watch.” Another said: “[Family member] is involved with most activities. Their favourite is flower arranging, and they like the visiting pets. Oh, and sing-along sessions.”

Relatives told us they felt their family member was safe,and staff communicated any changes in their needs. One relative said ‘‘Judging by [family member’s ] smiles, yes, absolutely. ”Another told us they were,“absolutely thrilled“ with how their family member had settled and said they no longer needed medicine to help them feel better when they were upset.

Relatives felt there were enough staff and they were familiar with their family member’s needs. One said: “I never have to look far to find someone. The staff are friendly, helpful. They all seem to know what they’re doing.” Relatives praised the continuity of care and appreciated the role of the key worker. One relative said: “In the beginning they (our family member) were very hard to manage.They wouldn’t settle, their dementia making them very confused. Their care has really been exemplary and have got them settled and focused. I love the way staff support their residents. ”Another said “The staff appear to be well trained. They’ve got a student social worker at the moment and she chats to people.”

The home itself provided a thoughtful and stimulating environment with some good features such as a tuck shop and artwork depicting landmarks around the world which people had visited.

The gardens were well laid out and landscaped. Access to them was unrestricted but at night doors were alarmed for people’s safety.

Bathroom doors were painted in bright colours to help distinguish them. There was appropriate signage throughout the home and people had objects of interest on their bedroom door and a number to help them identify their room.

Sensory objects on the walls which we asked if some people living with dementia might digest foreign bodies to which staff assured us of their safety.

Internal stairs might be difficult to negotiate but there was no evidence of increased falls in these areas and signs which had been removed were replaced showing changes in floor gradience.

Whilst we had some concerns with hygiene levels, relatives told us there were no smells and another said: “[Staff] all care, they keep the place lovely and clean – spotless, never any smells. They work as a team.”

Training was identified as a potential issue with some of the less experienced staff not always being familiar with people's needs and we identified a lack of confidence in using electronic records.However, recruitment, training and induction was robust.

A family member told us a person’s personal care was not always adhered to,but we observed people were smartly dressed and well presented. Staff said if people refused personal care,they would record it and try again, and all staff spoken with felt confident in escalating concerns and supporting people with dementia.

Complaints were dealt with effectively and there was robust communication with relatives and people using the service. Relative/resident and staff feedback was sought,and actions were taken because of feedback to improve the service. For example, mealtimes had changed in line with people’s preferences and trips considered where people wanted to go.