We carried out a review of the data available to us about Sherwood Court on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Sherwood Court, you can give feedback on this service.
At the last inspection, the service was rated Good.
At this inspection we found the service remained Good.
Due to their complex support needs people were not able to share their views about the support they received from the service. We observed their interactions with staff to help us understand their experience. People using the service appeared to feel safe and were at ease in the company of staff. Staff had received training to enable them to recognise signs and symptoms of abuse and felt confident in how to report concerns.
People had risk assessments in place to enable them to be as independent as they could be in a safe manner. Staff knew how to manage risks to promote people’s safety, and balanced these against people’s rights to take risks and remain independent.
There were sufficient staff, with the correct skill mix on duty to support people with their needs. Effective recruitment processes were in place and followed by the service. Staff were not offered employment until satisfactory checks had been completed. Staff received an induction process and on-going training. They had attended a variety of training to ensure they were able to provide care based on current practice when supporting people. They were supported with regular supervisions and annual appraisals.
Medicines were managed safely. The processes in place ensured that the administration and handling of medicines was suitable for the people who used the service.
People were supported to make decisions about all aspects of their life; this was underpinned by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff were knowledgeable of this guidance and correct processes were in place to protect people. Staff gained consent before supporting people.
People were able to make choices about the food and drinks they had, and staff gave support when required to enable people to access a balanced diet. There was access to drinks and snacks throughout the day.
People were supported to access a variety of health professionals when required, including doctors, psychiatrists, and mental health practitioners to make sure they received continuing healthcare to meet their needs.
Staff provided care and support in an exceptionally caring and meaningful way. They knew the people who used the service very well. People and relatives, where appropriate, were involved in the planning of their care and support.
People’s privacy and dignity was maintained at all times.
People were supported to follow their interests and join in activities.
There was a complaints procedure in place and an easy read version was available to support people to make a complaint should they wish to. There was a system in place to manage complaints although there had not been any in the twelve months before the inspection.
The manager provided strong leadership and was committed to promoting a person centred culture within the service.
Quality monitoring systems were in place. A variety of audits were carried out and used to drive improvement.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
This inspection took place on 07 May 2015 and was unannounced. Sherwood Court is a care home that provides accommodation and personal care for up to eight people with a learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder.
The service has a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People felt safe and they were protected against the possible risk of safeguarding concerns or harm. Risks to individuals had been assessed and managed appropriately. There were sufficient numbers of experienced and skilled staff to care for people safely. Medicines were managed safely and people received their medicines regularly and as prescribed.
People received care and support from staff who were competent in their roles. Staff had received relevant training and support from management for the work they performed. They understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. They were aware of how to support people who lacked mental capacity. People’s nutritional and health care needs were met. They were supported to maintain their health and wellbeing and had access to and received support from other health care professionals.
The experiences of people who lived at the care home were positive. They were treated with kindness and compassion and they had been involved in the decisions about their care where possible. People were treated with respect and their privacy and dignity was promoted.
People’s health care needs were assessed, reviewed and delivered in a way that promoted their wellbeing. They were supported to pursue their leisure activities both outside the home and to join in activities provided at the home. An effective complaints procedure was in place.
There was a caring culture and effective systems in operation to seek the views of people and other stakeholders in order to assess and monitor the quality of service provision.
During this inspection, we looked at the care plans and noted that they contained detailed information on how people's needs were to be met. We found that consent had been recorded within people's care plans and that people's care and support needs were well documented.
Medication was stored safely and records were in good order.
There was an effective recruitment policy and procedure in place, which was being followed to ensure that the right people had been employed.
Complaints were handled and effectively responded too
We found that the provider was meeting the standards we had inspected. People and their relatives had been involved in the decisions about their care and treatment. The care plans and the risk assessments had been reviewed regularly and kept up to date. This meant that staff had been provided with up to date information about people so that they were able to meet their needs appropriately. There were systems in place for reporting any allegations of abuse to the relevant authorities. Staff were aware of their responsibilities for reporting any allegations of abuse. Staff had received the relevant training to support them in their work. There were systems in place to monitor the quality of service provided.