Shinewater Court

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture. At our last assessment we rated this key question as good. At this assessment the rating has remained as good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

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 had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

We did not look at Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Freedom to speak up during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

The provider did not always have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability or good governance. They did not always act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate.

There were several systems to monitor, and these were used to improve the quality of the care and services at Shinewater Court. However, some monitoring systems were not fully effective and had not ensured the continued improvement of quality. For example, concerns had been raised by staff and people about the call bell system. It was not meeting everyone’s needs and was not accurate in recording how long people were waiting for assistance. Although people did not raise any concerns about waiting for support, the provider could not monitor how long staff were taking to respond to people’s needs.

During our site visit we saw the evening meal was being served on named paper plates. This did not provide a person-centred approach to mealtimes that supported a positive dining experience. The governance systems had not ensured quality services at all times. When this was raised with the registered manager, she took steps to address this issue, but ongoing quality review needs to be fully established to prevent a re-occurrence.

We did not look at Partnerships and communities during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contributed to safe, effective practice and research.