Shawford Springs Care Home

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.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated 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.

Staff understood the principles of person-centred care. One staff member said, “I talk a lot, and so I know a lot about the residents. I ask lots of questions about who they were and who they are. I also remember things like which countries they’ve been to, what they like to eat and good memories they have shared with me. It makes them feel important and again, I talk a lot about their passions and past jobs as it makes them feel really happy.”

People and their relatives told us staff knew them and understood their preferences and choices about their care and support. One person said, “I don’t know if the staff know my life story exactly, but they know me, and are always around to help me.” One person’s relative said, “The staff seem to know both my [relative’s] background and what's happened with [them] each week. They also know me quite well and even know my children's names.”

Care plans informed staff about people’s preferences, such as preferred time to get up in the morning, and whether they preferred a shower or a bath for example. Plans related to health needs, were detailed and informed staff how a health condition affected the person’s daily life.

We saw examples of how activities had been tailored towards people’s own choices and interests.

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.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish a continuity of care, including when people moved between different services. People told us they had access to health and social care professionals when required. Staff told us and we observed how they referred people for GP review. Staff could contact the GP surgery at any time if they had any concerns or questions, alongside weekly on-site visits. We saw records in place of when people were reviewed by health professionals.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People’s communication needs were assessed and when people experienced difficulties with hearing or speech for example, the care plans we looked at were informative and clear. Plans informed staff of any technology people used to keep in touch with friends and family. For example, in one person’s care plan it was documented that although the person had a mobile phone, they needed staff support to use it.

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.

There were ‘resident ambassadors’ in place. The registered manager told us these people were involved in showing potential new residents and families around the service, and that they hoped to involve them in staff interviews in the future. The ambassadors told us they held their own meetings with residents and fed their views directly back to the management team.

The registered manager said, “Our chief executive visited recently and spent time with the ambassadors getting some feedback.”

Resident and relative meetings also took place, and we saw minutes of these. Feedback was also sought via surveys, and we reviewed the latest results. There was a display of the most recent ‘you said, we did’ in the entrance to the service. This included residents asking for parasols and a table to be place under the garden pergola, more flowers in the garden and for the breakfast service to run more smoothly. We saw the garden furniture had been put in place; the gardening club had been planting seeds and new hosts had been employed for the breakfast service. One person said, “If there was something bothering me, I would ask the ambassador, it’s a very useful and helpful service that seems to work, but I haven't really had to complain about anything major at all.”

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

People with protected characteristics were supported to have equitable access to services. For example, people with a disability which impacted their ability to leave the home were supported to access health services to meet their 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.

Staff received training in equity, diversity and human rights to help them understand equality and address discrimination.

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.

There was an ‘end of life’ champion in post, and we saw a case study they had written explaining their extended role around improving end of life care within the service and promoting compassion, dignity and understanding. The case study referred to the aim of the role as being there “to ensure people were offered comfort, respect and a sense of peace as well as providing meaningful support to loved ones.”

We saw comfort boxes had been put in place which contained items aimed to ease discomfort or anxiety for people and their families. We were told the boxes had a positive impact on people and their relatives. Guidance had been introduced for families on what happens after someone dies, and feedback from staff indicated they felt more confident to answer questions around this topic.

A visiting professional said, “They [staff] have really stepped this up with their end-of-life care, including meeting the needs of families. They are very intuitive to people's needs, particularly when it comes to identifying pain. They will always tell us or ask us to have a look at someone if they are concerned. They want to make sure people have a good death."

At the time of our inspection, nobody was receiving end of life care. However, we saw advanced care plans were in place, which showed staff had been having conversations with people about the kind of care they wanted at the end of life, including whether they wanted to be admitted to hospital and any spiritual needs.

One person’s relative said, “[Name] became unresponsive earlier this year. The staff rang me and asked whether I would like [name] to go to hospital. The paramedics were called, and I went to meet them. It was good that the home listened and respected my wishes for [name] not to be transferred to hospital.”