You are here

Archived: The Shieling

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 10 August 2011
Date of Publication: 19 September 2011

People should be treated with respect, involved in discussions about their care and treatment and able to influence how the service is run (outcome 1)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Understand the care, treatment and support choices available to them.
  • Can express their views, so far as they are able to do so, and are involved in making decisions about their care, treatment and support.
  • Have their privacy, dignity and independence respected.
  • Have their views and experiences taken into account in the way the service is provided and delivered.

How this check was done

Our judgement

People and their relatives were involved and listened to by staff regarding choice and decisions about their care. However, the documentation and recording of these decisions did not always reflect the individual’s needs and wishes.

Overall we found that The Shieling was non compliant with this essential standard.

User experience

Many of the people who use the service could not tell us directly about their care due to them having a variety of complex care needs. However, one person told us they get “help from staff with their money when they need it”. One person told us they were “going shopping”. Another person told us they have choice about “what they do each day”.

Other evidence

Information we held about the service told us that there were concerns about how people’s rights and choices were respected.

During our inspection we observed people receiving support, which included activities taking place in the dining room and the lounge. Staff were observed taking part in one-to-one personalised activities with people. On the day of our visit five people had chosen to attend the Vocational Skills Centre for the day. This centre provided activities such as arts and crafts, woodwork and gardening.

We observed staff interacting with people who use the service in an appropriate and encouraging manner that respected their dignity and independence. We also noted that choice was offered to people living at the service which included how they spent their day and what they would like to eat for their evening meal.

We looked at two care plans in detail and the documents that supported these. We found no Mental Capacity Act (MCA) assessments or best interest assessments in either care plan. This type of documentation can be used to support assessment of capacity to make specific decisions and to support and record best interest decision making where a person lacks capacity. We were told by the manager that a review of mental capacity of the people living at the service was going to be undertaken in early August 2011. The lack of MCA assessments for people was also identified during a visit by the provider in July 2011.

We were told by the manager that one of the care plans we looked at was in the old format and one was in the new format. The manager told us all the care plans were to be in the new format by mid September 2011. Some would be in a format that was agreed with the individual person. We saw evidence that one care plan were in pictorial format.

Evidence was seen in one care plan that the person using the service had been involved in the completion of their care needs assessment. However, this was a 46 page document which contained some information regarding the care and welfare needs of the person, but it was not fully completed and the majority of the document consisted of questions that required yes or no answer. Therefore, the care needs assessment did not provide detailed information to help meet the care and support needs of this person.

We were told by one of the care workers that when they were completing the care needs assessment they had contacted the person’s relative, however the care worker told us that they had not documented this in the person’s care plan.

One care plan we looked at showed that the evaluation document had been updated with changes to the persons care. However, the care plan had not been reviewed or updated since 2007 and did not reflect the current choices the person had made about their care and support needs.

The manager told us that one-to-one support was given to five people living at the service. However, this was not evident in the care plans we looked at.

We spoke to one member of staff who told us that everyone had choice and there were no restrictions on how people wanted to spend their time. However, information relating to individual peoples funds was not always available to that person and the member of staff would explain there was, on occasion, insufficient money for them to purchase required items.