During an assessment under our new approach
Our view of the service
About the service
Shinewater Court is a care home that accommodates up to 37 people in a purpose-built service. At the time of this assessment, they had 37 people living there.
Who the service is for
Shinewater Court specialises in providing personal care and support to people with a range of physical disabilities. Some people lived with cerebral palsy, spina bifida and other disabilities following accidents or a stroke resulting in an acquired brain injury.
This service also supported people with a mild learning disability if this was secondary to their physical needs and staff were suitably trained to ensure people’s individual needs were met.
Key findings
We carried out this assessment on 30 July and 6 August 2026. This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this assessment 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.
People and their relatives supported the view that they were safe at Shinewater Court. The service was welcoming and presented as an inclusive environment on entry. A relative said,“I knew as soon as I came into this service it was the right place for them, so welcoming and homely; the staff were so welcoming.”
Risks to people’s health and safety had been assessed and responded to in ways that minimised risks without restricting people’s choice. Staff responded to accident and incidents quickly, and ensured information was shared to support people’s ongoing safety. Any concern that people were at risk of harm, abuse or discrimination, was highlighted quickly and referred to safeguarding appropriately. This ensured people’s safety and well-being.
The environment was well designed and adapted to support people with a physical disability. It was well maintained with appropriate checks and risk assessments followed up.
People were supported by enough staff who had the skills, knowledge and experience to support them safely and to meet their specific health and care needs. Records confirmed appropriate recruitment procedures were followed. Staff completed regular training to ensure they had relevant skills and knowledge. A staff member told us, “We are supported with extra training if and when needed.” The registered manager reviewed staffing levels and skill mix to reflect people’s varied needs. For example, taking account of people’s emotional and social well-being.
Medicines were handled safely and people received their prescribed medicines at the correct times. Staff competencies were assessed and practice seen was safe. Medicines were stored in individual locked cupboards and regular checks and audits supported safe storage and administration.
The assessment process before admission was thorough and took account of people’s varied complex care needs, ensuring a suitable placement. A staff member said, “When people move in adaptations are made to people’s rooms as they want and need, very individually specific.” Health needs were fully assessed along with health care professionals to support evidenced based care. A visiting professional praised the staff in this approach and the outcomes achieved, “The Shinewater team have endeavoured to support with this, and this has been very effective.”
Staff ensured people had maximum choice and control over their lives and were at the centre of any decisions about care and support. Each person had an allocated key worker to facilitate individual choice. The registered manager confirmed everyone had capacity to make choices for themselves given enough time. A staff member confirmed, “We don’t do anything without consent, people who are not able to verbalize can show their agreement or not in other ways.”
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. 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.
People were supported by caring and kind staff who promoted choices in a way people understood. Staff were keen to promote Shinewater Court as a community that provides an inclusive safe and caring environment. Relatives and friend involvement was given a high priority, with regular events held for both, and a welcoming approach to visitors. A staff member told us, “Nothing is ever too much trouble for the people we support. We often provide hotel like services.”
People’s independence and dignity was well promoted by staff. A staff member said, “It’s a priority to support independence and to give people purpose. Care records confirmed staff followed a proactive approach to independence and rehabilitation. Visiting health professionals confirmed this approach, “The relationship between the team and their residents is friendly and caring.They encourage autonomy and independence.”
People’s individual needs and preferences were accommodated. This included supporting people to have full and active lives. People were able to choose what they wanted to do, this included choosing from the events, activities and entertainment that were provided within the service.
The registered manager provided a stable and effective leadership for the service. They led by example and had regular contact with people and staff receiving daily feedback from both. There was a positive culture established where people and staff felt listened to.
Quality tools were used to monitor and review and improve the standard of care. Although all complaints were responded to and formal complaints were recorded, informal complaints were not well documented.