Shangri-La Residential Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last inspection we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good: This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

At our last inspection the provider was in breach of legal regulation in relation to Need for consent. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation.

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’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People were assessed prior to moving to the service to ensure their needs could be met. People and relatives where appropriate confirmed they had input into the development and review of their care plans. Care plans we saw provided evidence of people’s involvement.

Care plans were reviewed and updated to ensure they were meeting people’s current needs. Staff told us they were kept up to date about people’s changing support needs during handover or by reading care plans. We saw handover records contained detailed information.

People’s communication methods were outlined within their care plans to enable them to receive care and treatment which worked for them. Care plans we reviewed identified any difficulties with communication, such as hearing or speech and gave examples of how people communicated.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. Nationally recognised assessment tools were used. Concerns about people’s health needs were escalated to healthcare professionals and recommendations were acted on.

The home manager had acted on advice from healthcare professionals regarding types of slings used for hoisting equipment. The home manager had also set up further staff training in the use of a specific tool for assessing people’s needs, to ensure consistency of good practice.

People’s risk of malnutrition was assessed using a nationally recognised tool, care plans and risk assessments were comprehensive and enabled staff to mitigate risk.

We observed staff supporting people to eat at lunchtime did not always promote a dignified experience, for example standing next to people while supporting them to eat and moving away to support other people. We discussed this with the home manager, who assured us this was not practice they would expect and took immediate action to address it. At our following visit we observed staff sitting down with people while supporting them to eat. Feedback from people and relatives was positive and staff were described as attentive and responsive to individual preferences, ensuring people received meals they enjoyed.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

The service worked closely with other teams, including for example, the older persons mental health (OPMH) team. Records we reviewed showed staff communicated effectively with OMPH to provide information they required to support people to receive effective treatment and support their wellbeing.

Feedback from health professionals included, “I have generally found the home to be responsive and cooperative in supporting residents’ healthcare needs. Staff are usually approachable, communicate appropriately with the practice, and seek medical input when required. I have observed that residents appear well cared for and that their day-to-day health needs are generally recognised.”

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People told us they received support to access healthcare, inside and outside of the service. A person told us, “They accompany me, the carers, and they stay with me until I get my appointment.” Another person said, “I’ve been to several (appointments). They take me or my family does.” A relative commented, “I leave it to the home to organise. They escort her there and bring her back.” Records showed people had recent check-ups including hearing and oral health.

We observed people had access to activities which focused on movement such as armchair exercises. This promoted their physical health and mental wellbeing.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Managers and staff had daily meetings and handovers that ensured people’s care and support needs were discussed and monitored. Care plans showed evidence of reviews and updates, which meant people’s records reflected their current needs.

Food and fluid charts were used to monitor people’s intakes when necessary. Weights for people at risk were being recorded weekly or monthly, depending on their risk. The records demonstrated actions were taken where people had lost weight, resulting in gained weight.

Staff worked with other health professionals to provide the best possible care for people. Records showed that staff had recorded when people’s general wellbeing had changed and had sought appropriate advice or referrals, for example in relation to a person’s anxiety and unsettled behaviour.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

The provider was acting in accordance with the legal requirements under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and associated code of practice. We saw evidence of detailed and decision specific mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions, including documentary evidence where people had elected representatives to make decisions on their behalf.

For example, we reviewed mental capacity assessments for one person in relation to the use of a motion sensor outside the person’s bedroom and in the lounge, two-hourly checks at night, support with personal care, and advanced care planning. The person’s spouse had been involved in the assessments and best interest decisions. The person’s GP had also been involved in a best interest decision about the person’s medicines being given covertly.

Records indicated people’s mental capacity assessments were being reviewed monthly to ensure these were up to date and covered all appropriate areas. The provider’s consent to care, support and treatment policy and procedure had been reviewed and updated in March 2026.

Staff had received training in MCA, and we observed staff asking for people’s consent before providing care and support. Staff understood the importance of seeking people’s consent and supporting them in the least restrictive ways. The deputy manager said they felt mental capacity assessment had improved with support and guidance from the local authority Care Homes Team.