Shottendane Nursing Home

Updated 4 November 2025

We carried out this assessment between 12 November to 1 December 2025. This was the first assessment for this newly registered service. The service was previously owned and managed by a different provider. Shottendane Nursing Home is a care home providing personal and nursing care to up to 38 over three floors. At the time of our inspection, 27 people were using the service, some of whom were living with dementia and had nursing needs.

There were management plans in place that provided guidance to staff to reduce risks to people. However, staff did not always follow this. Constipation risks were not managed effectively to reduce pain and harm to people. Staff did not always make sure pressure relieving mattresses were set correctly in line with manufacturer’s instructions to ensure they were effective to support people at risk of pressure sores. Repositioning charts were not always completed to show people had been repositioned when needed. We were concerned about the competency and effectiveness of staff as they did not always recognise signs of risk to people. The systems in place to monitor and assess the quality of the service had not always identified the concerns we picked up during this inspection. However, the provider responded promptly and took appropriate steps to address and resolve the concerns we identified.

The service was in breach of one regulation in relation to managing risks.

People were safeguarded from the risk of abuse. Staff had received safeguarding training and knew actions to take to report abuse.

Incidents and accidents were reviewed, analysed and action taken to ensure learning from them. People’s medicines were administered and managed safely. There were enough staff available to support people. Staff were trained in infection control and followed procedures to reduce risks of infection.

People’s needs were assessed in line with best practice guidance. People’s nutritional needs were met. People were supported to eat a balanced diet and drink enough to keep hydrated. People had access to the healthcare services they needed to maintain good health; and staff liaised effectively with other services.

People’s consent was sought for the care and support they received. The service complied with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Relatives and healthcare professionals were involved in making decisions for people in their best interests where this was appropriate.

People’s end-of-life wishes were documented in their care plans and followed when required. People were supported and encouraged to participate in activities they enjoyed.

People and their relatives knew how to raise complaints about the service. Complaints were appropriately addressed in line with the provider’s procedure. The provider worked in partnership with other organisations and services to develop and improve the service.

Updated 4 November 2025

They told us there were enough staff to support them. People and their relatives told us the service was improving,and their concerns were addressed.

People and their relatives consistently expressed that the service felt safe and welcoming. Comments described the environment as comfortable, with one person saying their loved one “feels like they are in a hotel” and receives what they want. Others shared that their loved one “really enjoys living there” and that this gives families “peace of mind.”

Feedback highlighted that care staff are generally skilled, knowledgeable, and attentive. Several relatives described staff as “well trained,” “careful and pleasant,” “excellent and patient,” and “kind and very good.”

While most comments were positive, some relatives highlighted variability. They said that although some staff were ‘incredible and wonderful,’ others were not as consistent. One relative described some staff as being ‘less emotional and abrupt.’

There were positive remarks about personalised care. Relatives noted that staff took care of all needs, including maintaining the person’s appearance and offering small comforts such as playing music on the TV. Care was described as “personalised to their needs” and “satisfactory.”

Several relatives felt their loved one was “in the right place” and emphasised the kindness of staff as the best aspect of the service.

Feedback about the home’s environment was largely positive. Relatives described the atmosphere as good and the building as clean and tidy, even though it was acknowledged to be very old.

We received mixed responses about the level of activities in the home. Some felt there were enough and some thought there were not enough. However, we found on both days of our visits there were activities taking place in small groups and one-to-one in people’s rooms. We observed group activities in the communal area where people, their visitors and staff joined in.