Shaws Wood Residential 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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 68 (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 were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Care plans were detailed in relation to most areas of people’s care and support needs and included individual preferences, likes, dislikes and favoured routines. However, care plans were not always person centred. For example, other people’s names were detailed in the care plan. Care plans were inconsistent in places. The registered manager was in the process of transferring care plans from paper records to a new electronic system. Care plans were being reviewed as part of this process. People’s daily notes did not always show that people had their care needs met as detailed in their care plan. For example, oral care and nail care was not always recorded. We observed a person who had been supported with their personal care and then brought to the lounge area. They had very long and dirty nails. They had not received nail care as part of their daily care and support routine as detailed in their care plan.

Staff knew people well. A relative told us their loved one received personal care to meet their needs and was supported to dress appropriately. Another relative said, “I think some of the staff know her really well but not all of them as they don’t always work on the same floor.”

People told us, “They all know me well and know how I like things to be done. I have been here for 4 years now”; “Most of the staff know me well” and “Its comfortable, staff are good they are like daughters.”

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.

Information was shared with staff during handover regarding any changes to people’s health or care needs. A staff member said, “The handover is carried out on every shift. We have paperwork of each resident, and any concerns are noted down for the next shift. This then gets handed over on the next shift.”

The service worked with other health professionals involved in people’s care. Staff told us how they supported people and their relatives. Relatives told us they felt staff supported people with appointments and communicated well with GPs and health specialists to ensure people received continuity of care. A relative told us, “When dad has had issues, they have had healthcare professionals out to see him.” Another relative said, “She started losing weight, they were doing a SALT (Speech and language therapy) referral.”

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

There was a lack of dementia friendly way marking around the service to direct and orientate people. There were some dementia friendly signage on doors such as the dining room, some toilets, bathrooms and shower rooms, but this was inconsistent. Some people had been actively walking around the service. People and staff told us a person had regularly walked in rooms of others.

Communication care plans were in place detailing how each person communicated. Staff were aware of people’s individual communication needs for example, people who may have hearing or visual impairments. Pictures were used to help people make informed food choices. The registered manager showed us the service had a bank of easy to read documents ready and available if anyone needed them.

There were some notice boards around the service which had some easier to read information on display.

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.

We observed good practice from staff in relation to listening and involving people with their care and making decisions. The registered manager shared with us that they held meetings with people on a regular basis. Updates about the service were also shared at these meetings as well as discussions about food likes and dislikes, activities, staffing, complaints and concerns. People and their relatives were sent surveys about the service. A family and friends meeting had also been held in February 2025. The meeting records showed that the management team had discussed plans and arrangements for the service. The records also showed a laundry rail had been put together for unmarked laundry. Relatives had been invited to check for missing items of laundry and encouraged to label clothing correctly. Some relatives told us laundry remained an issue at the service. Comments included, “Laundry is sometimes an issue, things go missing”; “The laundry system needs looking at, but I think they have rectified that with getting laundry staff there. I’ve been very frustrated at times with the laundry not being done on time”; “I am not happy about the laundry clothes go missing and it cost a lot to replace” and “I have gone to them and they have dealt with the issues. There hasn’t been major concerns apart from the laundry issues. Any issues I have raised they have been addressed.”

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

People told us they had access to visiting health professionals. Staff gave us examples of when they had recognised people were not acting in their usual manner and the action they took. Staff were knowledgeable about how to recognise signs of deterioration and care staff said they would report health changes to the GP surgery. Care staff told us if they witnessed people having medical emergencies they would press the emergency call bell.

There were processes in place to ensure that people could receive care, support and treatment when they needed it. People were also supported to attend healthcare appointments at the hospital when required. Records showed that TVN’s (Tissue Viability Nurses) provided input and support to manage wounds where people’s skin had broken down. Staff took action to report concerns, for example advice had been sought from the GP regarding significant changes to people’s health and mobility.

People were supported to maintain contact with their friends and families. We observed people receiving visits from friends and families during the assessment.

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.

The provider had a clear policy in place in relation to equality, diversity and inclusion. The provider set out information they provided to CQC. ‘Central to our core beliefs as a company is to ensure the principles of human rights are embedded within our service for all who use the service and for stakeholders of the service including all employees. We have a zero tolerance approach to any type of discrimination or harassment, bullying or victimization. Policies and procedures relating to both staff and service users include consideration of and references to both equality and diversity and human rights legislation’. People’s care and support was tailored to their own needs and wishes.

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. The provider had systems and processes in place to understand the diverse health and care needs of people living at the service. Some people had a DNACPR (Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation) form in place. This is an advanced decision not to attempt CPR. It is not about other treatments or care. Some people had ReSPECT (Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care Treatment) forms in place. A ReSPECT form records a person's wishes about a range of care and treatments.

End of life care plans were as comprehensive as the person wanted it to be and plans were clear in cases where people had chosen not to discuss this element of their care. The service provided some care to people at the end of their lives. Staff told us that they worked closely with the local hospice to ensure people had effective support and pain relief to ensure people had dignified, pain free deaths. Medicines were available to keep them as comfortable as possible. Staff told us they had attended training to support people at the end of their life. A staff member said, “In general I make sure they are comfortable and care for them as much as you can.” Another staff member said, “We have the palliative community team who we work with when a person is at end of life, we make people comfortable as they can, we call the team, and they come.”

A person said, “I am quite content, I would like to end my days here, (not in a hospital) surrounded by my family and staff who care for me.”

The service had received thank you cards from relatives of people who had passed away. A card read, ‘I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for everything you provided to [person] she benefitted from your care, attention, patience, calmness, kindness and love. I know she was always treated with the utmost love and respect during her time with you.’