Sholden Hall Residential Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People’s care plans had been re-written since our last assessment. They now contained details about people’s needs, choices and preferences including social needs. Staff had spent time speaking to people and their relatives to understand their life experiences and how this may affect their experience of care.

Relatives told us they had been involved in developing people’s care plans, a relative told us, “We went to the home before they went in, and the manager was very welcoming and gave us a tour of the place. We spoke to the manager about their needs, and everything was documented. They have been brilliant with us”.

We observed people being supported to join in activities when they wanted. Relatives told us people were encouraged to take part in activities they enjoyed. Comments included, “They have puzzles to do, and we have taken some puzzles in. (Relative) used to like doing puzzles but not so much now. They have games and keep family members informed with snippets on social media which is nice to see”. Another relative told us, “I have been there when they have played music – it is good for people when nice music is played. They had carol singers over Christmas, and a lady goes in and gets them exercising”. Relatives told us they were always made to feel welcome when they visited or took people out.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. Staff understood the importance of referring people to healthcare professionals when their needs changed. There was evidence people had been referred to the diabetic nurse when their blood sugars were high. Staff were aware of restrictions on people and their access to the community or technology and worked with people to keep them safe.

There was a stable staff group who knew people and their relatives well, offering continuity. Staff told us they covered annual leave and sickness, so people were always supported by people who knew them.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

There was limited easy read information for people. The complaints policy was displayed in the service, but this was not available in different formats. However, safeguarding information and the daily menu were in easy read format. There was some pictorial signage within the service. We discussed how this could be improved with the manager and they had ideas about how this could be improved. Following the assessment, the manager sent us photos of the new signs which had been put up around the service.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result. The manager understood the need to gain feedback from people and act appropriately. However, they had inherited a system which was not always effective in gathering and analysing feedback. The manager had organised a resident meeting and planned to hold these regularly to discuss items such as menu reviews.

Relatives meetings had not been held previously as historically they had not been well attended. The manager planned to look at new ways of holding meetings to encourage attendance such as remote access. There was a suggestion box for people and relatives to make suggestions and relatives had also completed external platforms to review the service.

There was a survey template in place, but this had not been reviewed recently as it still had questions about the pandemic. The manager told us they would review the survey to make it more relevant and current. The surveys were completed adhoc and there was no process to analyse and identify patterns and trends. The manager told us, they would review the whole process to make it more useful. Relatives told us they had not felt the need to complain but knew how to complain and were confident the manager would deal with it appropriately.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Relatives told us, people were supported to attend appointments including when they needed assistance with their mobility. Staff referred people when their needs changed and their health conditions needed to be reviewed.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

The manager understood the need to advocate for people using the service against discrimination. However, this had not always been part of the staff’s role, the manager was working with staff to make improvements. People’s care plans now included information about people’s protected characteristics which may lead them to be discriminated against.

Staff told us they now understood how previously people had not always been supported appropriately and what their role should have been. Staff were confident they would advocate for people when they were not receiving the support they needed.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. People and their relatives had been asked about their end of life wishes. When people had expressed wishes these had been recorded as part of their care plan.

People and their relatives had discussed how they wanted to be supported in the future when they became unwell. These discussions included the completion of ReSPECT forms and do not resuscitate instructions by healthcare professionals. Some people had decided they did not always want to go to hospital if they could receive treatment at the service. Some people had been prescribed ‘just in case’ medicines, these medicines could be administered immediately by healthcare professionals when people became unwell.