Shaws Wood Residential Care 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 assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 62 (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 did not always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People had their needs assessed before moving to the service. These assessments were used to develop the person’s care plans and make the decisions about the staffing hours and skills needed to support the person. The assessment included making sure that support was planned for people’s diversity needs, such as their religion, gender, marital status, culture and their abilities.

Assessments included information about what people could do for themselves. Each person’s care plan and assessments had been reassessed each month. However, this practice had ceased for some people in February 2025 and for others in May 2025. The registered manager told us they had fallen behind with these updates due to the transfer of care records on to the electronic system. This meant people had not been routinely reassessed as their needs changed to ensure the care they received met their needs. For example, a person had developed a pressure injury but their skin care assessment showed that their skin was intact.

Some people were able to recall being involved in their assessments and care planning process and some people told us they had not been involved.

Relatives said, “I have seen the care plan and have been involved in reviewing it. I frequently converse with the management staff [names listed] and the office staff”; “When [person] first came in we went through the care plan, they left to me to decide things” and “I was lucky to have gone through the care plan with social services because she was doing a review on her and we had gone through the care plan together and then a month later I had another care plan review.”

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. The provider had systems and processes in place to meet people’s nutrition and hydration needs. This required some improvement. We observed people being offered plenty of drinks to meet their hydration needs. However, people were not always getting drinks as per their choice. A person was brought to a lounge at 11:15 and was asked if they would like a drink. The person asked for a cup of tea and something to eat. The staff member told them it was not long until lunch and left the room. At 11:40 another staff member noticed the person had not got a drink and poured them a glass of orange squash.

We carried out observations at mealtimes. The food looked appealing and smelt appetising. Not everyone observed was given the support they needed to eat their meals whilst they were hot. Staff were seen to be attentive in the dining area but those sitting in the main reception lounge near the front door had a different experience. They required more support than they were offered. People were seen sitting with mostly full plates for up to 20 mins after it had been served. Staff did not engage with people in this area until we asked if the people were enjoying their meal and encouraged them to eat. Two people appeared not to understand what they were supposed to be doing, one person began eating and one person told us, “I’m not eating that muck, you eat it”.

Care plans and risk assessments clearly described what modified diet people were prescribed and the care plans followed The International Dysphagia Diet Standardisation Initiative (IDDSI) framework. The guidance was also available in the kitchen for staff responsible for preparing, cooking and serving meals. Kitchen staff and those responsible for supporting people with their food had a good understanding of people’s assessed needs in relation to type and texture of food as well as any allergies and food intolerances. Staff told us they helped people to make their meal choices if they needed it.

We observed staff asking people what food choices they would like. We received positive feedback about the food. Comments included, “Food is good”; “Food is great”; “Can be good or bad but generally ok”; “I like the food” and “It’s ok, but I would like to have fish and chips from a chippy.” Relatives told us, “Food is ok. Mum is a real foody and eats well”; “Food is really good” and “Although she doesn’t have mental capacity to make decisions if she doesn’t like a particular food, she will be able to tell you. Staff will ask her what she would like from the menu and allow her to make the decision. She is happy with the food choices. My mum enjoys the roasts.”

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 provider had a clear process in place to escalate health concerns.

Staff worked with health professionals to ensure people got the care and support they needed. The registered manager told us, they worked with the local hospice when people were at end of life, to seek advice and support. Staff told us there were good links with other health professionals such as SaLT (Speech and Language Therapy), the GP, physicians associate, TVN (Tissue Viability nurse). A staff member told us, “I work well with outside healthcare professionals especially people who do the glasses as I would have to tell the residents who this person is and why they are here, so they are not alarmed. I’ll sit the residents down and talk to them.” The service received nursing support from community nurses who visited the service.

People told us staff worked with GP’s and health professionals to meet their health needs. Relatives said that people’s health needs were well met. Comments included, “The staff sort [appointments] out for her, and I will take her to any appointments when I can” and “Whenever she needed healthcare professionals the home have arranged for that and if necessary call 999.”

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 were supported with their healthcare. A person told us, “Staff would sort out if I needed to see someone.” A relative said, “I don’t know if doctors come to the service, but he certainly is involved with my mother as she gets a number of water infections. The doctor has been giving her antibiotics to treat it" and “I spoke to the senior who arranged a district nurse. The district nurse took her bloods and gave the results within two hours.”

Nurses visited the service daily to administer insulin and carry out additional tasks such as wound checks. The registered manager advised the service had a good relationship with the GP practice. Paramedic practitioners visited the service each week and if required the GP attended if a medical problem needed additional input. People living at the service had access to a range of health care professionals, for example, the community mental health team, chiropody, dietician, dentists and SALT (Speech and language therapists). Visiting was encouraged and people were supported to attend medical appointments. Staff had a good understanding of meeting people’s changing needs. We observed staff supporting people to maximise their independence such as encouraging them to walk with equipment, providing lots of praise and providing reassurances.

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.

Staff worked together as a team to support people and to ensure people received their care and support in the way they chose. Staff across the service had become champions within the service to drive improvement. Champions were in place for a number of different important areas such as skin care. Staff had completed additional training to complement their champion roles.

A staff member told us, “I would report [concerns] to the pressure sore lead or infection control champion first and if they didn’t deal with it in a timely manner, I would then take it to my manager. If that person wasn’t on shift I would tell my senior.”

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

We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA), whether appropriate legal authorisations were in place when needed to deprive a person of their liberty. The service worked within the principles of the MCA and if needed, appropriate legal authorisations were in place to deprive a person of their liberty. However, when people were assessed as lacking capacity to make decisions, appropriate procedures were not always followed to ensure principles within the MCA were followed. Decisions were not always appropriately documented to demonstrate who had been involved in the decision. People had signed consent forms within their care records. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) applications and authorisations were in place for people around any restrictions within their lives that they did not have capacity to consent to. Systems to review these were also in place. People's ability to consent to care and support had been assessed.

Care was person centred. People were offered choices throughout the day and people told us they felt listened to and their views and opinions were important to staff. People said, “I can choose what I want to do and when I want to do it. I like to be independent” and “I make my own decisions about what I want to do.” Relatives told us, “He can make decisions about when he wants to go to bed or sit on a chair. He’s still got a certain amount of capacity” and “She can make choices. My mum doesn’t like having a wash until she has had her breakfast and the staff do support her with that and they do go out their way to help her.”