Sheepwalk House

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 through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 75 (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 rooms were personalised, and the environment was suited to the people who live at Sheepwalk House. One person had privacy stickers on their window as they kept removing their curtains. Various options such as magnetic and Velcro curtains had been trialled which had not worked. This helped protect the persons dignity.

Care plans were person centred and reflected people’s preferences, life histories and wishes. Our observations, together with information in people’s care plans, confirmed that staff respected people’s individual needs and wishes. The service recognised the importance of knowing people well to deliver care that was bespoke to the person. The registered manager said, “It is not one size fits all. The support plans make it person centred. Staff know what works for one won’t work for another. One person might be able to one thing and someone else can’t.” This meant people received care that reflected their individual needs, preferences, and what mattered most to them.

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.

People were supported by a dedicated, consistent, core team of staff who knew them extremely well, which provided a continuity of care for them. Key events were shared with people via notice boards and notifications. This meant people experienced consistent, joined-up care that met their ongoing needs.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People were given information in a way which was meaningful for them. Care plans contained information about communication preferences. This included the use of communication aids as well as how best to talk with people so they were able to process information. We saw examples of communication tools used to support people such as Picture Exchange Communication System (PECS) board and social stories. These ways of working utilise pictures and symbols to aid people’s understanding and communication.

There was easy read fire evacuation plans around the home to assist people with how to evacuate in the event of a fire safely. This was created for someone who previously may not have left the building in the event of a fire and allowed them to understand the situation when the alarm sounded and safely leave the building with staff support.

People’s relatives could access care plans as and when required and were kept up to date when changes occurred. This meant people and their families were better informed and able to make confident decisions about care.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment, and support.

Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. Managers proactively sought feedback from people's relatives and staff, using regular surveys, meetings, and individual conversations. People's relatives told us they felt able to approach staff and managers at any time.Relatives told us they had no complaints and any issues they had raised informally were dealt with swiftly. One relative told us, “Never a complaint, if I am unsure about things I’d say. I’ve always received a satisfactory answer. No complaints, if I did, I would be listened to.”

Relatives also felt involved in people’s care by being contacted by Sheepwalk House staff team. One relative said, “I’m always told if anything happens or gone wrong. [Registered manager] who runs it phones up straight away; we go back a long way. No problems whatsoever.” This meant people’s views and preferences were still represented and considered in their care, even when they could not communicate them directly.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support, and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Staff and managers ensured that where needed, timely and appropriate referrals were made to health and social care professions. Staff at the service ensured that people-maintained links with community services which were important to them. Staff communicated with specialist agencies when necessary.

As people couldn't engage with resident meetings the manager had implemented regular key worker meetings to discuss what went well and what didn't go so well. Which was created in a pictorial format. This meant people could access the service regardless of their background or circumstances, helping ensure that care was inclusive, fair, and tailored to individual needs.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support, and treatment in response to this.

People’s plans of care were highly personalised and ensured that staff and managers understood the level of support people required to maintain their hobbies, interests, and relationships with people important to them. People were supported to achieve their goals and pursue new interests.

People's relatives did not report any concerns in relation to discrimination and inequality. Staff completed training in equality and diversity to understand and reduce inequalities that affected outcomes for people they supported. Staff were motivated to identify opportunities for people to try new things. Therefore, despite people having limited verbal communication, staff and the management team worked to improve their experiences and outcomes through interacting with their family and trying things with people to improve their lives.

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. No-one was being supported with end-of-life care at the time of the inspection. Where people did want to discuss their end-of-life care wishes this was recorded in their care plan. We saw the registered manager had emailed one family in a compassionate way to gather more information in this area, explaining the importance and reasons for needing this information.

A relative was having support from the manager to arrange future planning for finances through the Court of Protection. The Court of Protection make decisions on financial, or welfare matters for people who can’t make decisions at the time they need to be made (they ‘lack mental capacity’). The manager had arranged for a specialist social worker to come to the home to carry out an assessment with the person. This meant the person’s future care and best interests were protected and gave their relative reassurance and support during important decisions.