- Care home
Sholden Hall Residential Home
Assessment report published 11 November 2025
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of Assessment: 02 July to 21 July 2025. The service is a residential care home supporting up to 27 older people, some living with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 27 people living at the service.
We identified 2 continued breaches of the legal regulation in relation to safe care and treatment, and good governance. We identified 2 further breaches of the legal regulations in relation to safeguarding and employment of fit and proper persons.
People had not always effectively been safeguarded from potential harm. Risks in relation to people’s health such as diabetes continued not to be effectively managed. Guidance was not always in place or detailed to help staff provide safe care for people’s specific health or care needs and for people with anxieties. Risk mitigation strategies were not consistently followed. People had not been protected against the risk of infection or fire. Medicines were not always managed safely. There were now enough staff to support people safely although staff deployment had not always been effective. We received mixed feedback from people about whether there were enough staff to meet their needs, none shared any negative impact they had experienced from the staffing levels. Staff had not always been recruited safely.
People’s needs were assessed, and staff worked with other professionals and external agencies to try and meet people’s needs including physical and mental health. However, this was not always done effectively and people were not always supported to live healthier lives.
People’s capacity was assessed however the principles of the Mental Capacity Act were not always followed. For example, when people were assessed as having capacity their decisions were not always respected. Restrictions including restraint were not always lawfully carried out.
The quality assurance systems continued not to be effective and did not identify the issues we found during this inspection. Audits had not been effectively carried out to identify the issues with risk management and care provision that we found. The provider had begun to take action following the inspection to address some of the concerns we identified.
Robust learning had not taken place to prevent repeat incidents and concerns within the service. Accidents and incident were not always recorded with details to enable the management to have clear oversight and identify patterns or trends.
Staff knew people well and supported people in a kind and caring way. Staff were positive about the management. Professionals provided positive feedback about the staff. They said, “The carers show kindness and are welcoming to our nurses when visiting in the home.” Professionals told us the service worked in partnership for example seeking advice and made referrals.
In instances where CQC have decided to take civil or criminal enforcement action against a provider, we will publish this information on our website after any representations and/ or appeals have been concluded.We have also asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.
This service is being placed in special measures. The purpose of special measures is to ensure that services providing inadequate care make significant improvements. Special measures provide a framework within which we use our enforcement powers in response to inadequate care and provide a timeframe within which providers must improve the quality of the care they provide.
During this inspection we spoke to 10 people living at the service, 3 relatives, 8 staff including the Provider, Registered Manager, Head of Care, Seniors, Carers, Kitchen and Domestic staff. We sought and received feedback from professionals working with the service. We observed staff practices and people’s experience of care and looked at records to support this.
People's experience of this service
People and relatives told us staff supported them safely, some gave examples of how staff supported them safely after they had a fall. However, we observed not all people were supported safely in line with their risk assessments and care plans for some of their individual risks.
People and relatives felt staff knew them well and supported them to meet their needs. A person told us, “[I feel safe] because of the quality of the care.” However, people and relatives gave mixed feedback about whether or not they had been included in their care planning.
People told us they were satisfied with the home environment and their bedrooms were kept clean. A person said, “‘I don’t have any concerns about the building. It’s alright.”
People told us they received their required medicines because “staff bring them to me.” People were supported with any ‘as required medicines’.
People gave mixed feedback about the staffing levels in the home, some people felt the service could use an extra member of staff at times but no one felt this had negatively impacted on their care. All people told us when they used their call bell staff came quickly.
People and relatives felt staff supported people’s health needs compassionately. A person told us, “If I say I don’t feel good, they leave me in bed and bring my breakfast into me.” Feedback was that staff escalated concerns to relevant professionals.
People and relatives were very positive about the caring nature of the staff team and felt the management were approachable and took action to address their concerns. A person told us, “Yes, they’re really nice, some of the best. They’ve all got good hearts.” A relative told us, “We can feel a strong dedication and love from the staff.”
However, some people felt they were not always asked for consent before staff provided support. Some people also fedback the food and activities were areas for improvement.