We carried out a review of the data available to us about Shenley Wood Village on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Shenley Wood Village, you can give feedback on this service.
This inspection took place on 17 and 18 April 2018 and was announced. At our last inspection, on 17 March 2016 the service was rated Good.
At this inspection, we found the service remained Good in Safe, Caring and Responsive. The service had progressed to Outstanding in Effective and Well-led giving it an overall rating of Outstanding.
Shenley Wood Village provides care and support to people living in specialist ‘extra care’ housing. Extra care housing is purpose-built or adapted single household accommodation in a shared site or building. The accommodation is bought or rented, and is the occupant’s own home. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) does not regulate premises used for extra care housing. This inspection looked at people’s personal care and support service. Not everyone living at Shenley Wood Village was receiving personal care. CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’, help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, receive personal care we also take into account any wider social care provided.
Shenley Wood Village has 300 homes on site. Dependent on individual circumstances they can support people from housekeeping to personal care, including supporting people with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 42 people receiving support with personal care.
The service did not have a registered manager. However, there was a manager who had applied to register with CQC to become a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons.’ Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
There was an all-inclusive approach to assessing, planning and delivering care and support. The service looked for innovative approaches to care and support, and how it should be delivered. New evidence-based approaches were used to support the delivery of high-quality care and support. Training was tailored to meet people’s individual needs and the provider recognised that the on-going development of staff skills, competence and knowledge was central to ensuring high-quality care and support.
People experienced extremely positive outcomes regarding their health and wellbeing. A well-being advisor was available to support people with anything that could affect their health and wellbeing and action was taken quickly to address this. There were champions within the service who actively supported staff to make sure people experienced good healthcare outcomes leading to an exceptional quality of life.
The provider and the management team were highly committed to ensuring people lived fulfilling lives and were protected from social isolation. The whole focus of people’s care was individualised and focused on promoting people’s independence as well as their physical and mental well-being. People were empowered to make their own choices and staff were highly motivated with a ‘can do’ approach which meant they were able to achieve very positive outcomes for people.
The management team demonstrated an excellent understanding of the importance of effective governance processes. There were excellent quality monitoring systems in place to enable checks of the service provided to people and to ensure they were able to express their views so improvements could be made. There was a high level of satisfaction with the service. There was strong leadership that put people first and set high expectations for staff. There was an open culture and a clear vision and values, which were put into practice. Staff were proud to work for the service and felt valued for their work. A positive culture was demonstrated by the attitudes of staff and management when we talked with them about how they supported people.
People continued to receive safe care. Staff had received training to enable them to recognise signs and symptoms of abuse and felt confident in how to report them. People had risk assessments in place to enable them to be as independent as they could be in a safe manner. Effective recruitment processes were in place and followed by the service. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs but some people expressed dissatisfaction with the use of agency staff at the service.
Staff were trained in infection control, and had the appropriate personal protective equipment to perform their roles safely. There were arrangements in place for the service to make sure that action was taken and lessons learned when things went wrong, to improve safety across the service
Staff demonstrated their understanding of the Mental Capacity Act, 2005 (MCA) and they gained people's consent before providing personal care. People's consent was gained before any care was provided. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
Staff were caring and had built open and honest relationships with people. They were knowledgeable about how best to communicate with people and to advocate for them and ensure their views were heard. People spoke of the family atmosphere at the service and the genuine interest staff took in their well-being. There was a strong culture within the service of treating people with dignity and respect and staff spent time getting to know people and their specific needs before they provided them with care and support.
At our first comprehensive inspection on 8 and 9 October 2015 we found we found that the service relied heavily on the use of agency staff which had resulted in a lack of consistency of care staff. Changes had been made to the management of the service and a team of managers had been drafted in on a temporary basis to improve standards until a permanent management team had been recruited. In addition, we found that audits and reviews had not been regularly used to monitor performance and manage risk and not been effective in identifying areas of concern within the service.
We asked the provider to provide us with an action plan to address this and to inform us when this would be completed. During this inspection we looked at these areas to see whether or not improvements had been made.
Shenley Wood Village has 300 homes on site with over 350 older people living at the service. Dependent on individual circumstances staff can support people with personal care to housekeeping. The service also supports people living with dementia. There were 55 people using the service when we visited.
The service had a manager in post that was going through the registration process with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
We carried out this second announced comprehensive inspection on 17 March 2016 and found that the service had a permanent manager in post. They told us that the recruitment of permanent staff was a priority and had been on-going. The manager told us they were gradually introducing set guaranteed hour contracts as opposed to zero hour contracts for those staff who did not wish to work full time hours. This was in an effort to help with staff retention as it gave staff more security. We were told there were also plans to increase the pool of bank staff to ensure a more consistent approach to staffing. People told us, and the staff rotas confirmed that the use of agency staff had reduced significantly since our last visit.
We also found that quality monitoring systems and processes had been improved and were being used effectively to make positive changes, drive future improvement and identify where action needed to be taken. We saw improvements plans for the service with timescales for completion.
Staff were trained in how to protect people from abuse and harm. They knew how to recognise signs of abuse and how to use the whistleblowing procedure. Risk assessments were centred on the needs of the individual and any potential risks to people had been identified. We saw that risk management plans had been completed to enable them to live as safely and independently as possible. There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s needs and keep them safe. Robust recruitment checks took place in order to establish that staff were safe to work with people before they commenced employment.
Medicines were stored, administered and recorded safely and correctly. Staff were trained in the safe administration of medicines and maintained relevant records that were accurate.
Staff received regular training which provided them with the knowledge and skills to meet people’s needs in a person centred manner. People told us and records confirmed that all of the staff received regular training in mandatory subjects. In addition, we saw that specialist training specific to the needs of people using the service had been completed. People told us they were mainly responsible for their own food provision. However if they required support then this was provided. People could be supported to cook their own meals or to have a meal in the village restaurant. Referrals to other health and social care professionals were made when appropriate; to maintain people’s health and well-being.
People and their relatives were involved in the planning of their care and felt included in discussions. They said that staff listened and respected their views about the way they wanted their care and support to be delivered. People told us they were treated with kindness and compassion. The privacy and dignity of people was promoted by staff and they treated people with respect.
People received care that was responsive to their needs. Their care and support needs were assessed and care plans gave clear guidance on how they were to be supported. Records showed that people and their relatives were involved in the assessment process and review of their care. The service had an effective complaints procedure in place and we saw appropriate systems for responding to any complaints the service received. Staff were responsive to people’s worries, anxieties and concerns and acted promptly to resolve them.
Staff attended regular meetings, which gave them an opportunity to share ideas, and exchange information about possible areas for improvements. Ideas for change were welcomed, and used to drive improvements and make positive changes for people.
This inspection took place on 8 & 9 October 2015 and was unannounced.
Shenley Wood Village has 300 homes on site with over 350 older people living at the service. Approximately a third of people within the village receive help with their care. Dependent on individual circumstances staff can support people with personal care to housekeeping. The service also supports people living with dementia. There were 54 people using the service when we visited.
Following recent changes to the management team, there was a temporary registered manager in place, until a permanent manager had been recruited. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
Prior to our visit we received concerns in relation to insufficient staffing numbers, a high use of agency staff and poor management and leadership within the service.
During this inspection we found that the service relied heavily on the use of agency staff, because of this, we found there was a lack of consistency of care staff. This was confirmed by people we spoke with. All the people we spoke with were unanimous in their wish for continuity in care. People also told us that staff were often rushed and did not stay for their allotted time.
Changes had recently been made to the management of the service and a team of managers had been drafted in on a temporary basis to improve standards until a permanent management team had been recruited. People we spoke with felt unsettled and anxious about the recent changes.
We saw that audits and reviews had not been regularly used to monitor performance and manage risk and not been effective in identifying areas of concern within the service.
People were protected from abuse and felt safe. Staff were knowledgeable about the risks of abuse and reporting procedures. We saw that risks to people’s safety had been assessed and were linked to their care plans. Pre-employment checks were completed on staff before they were judged to be suitable to look after people at the service. People received their medicines from staff that were trained and competent to administer medication safely.
Staff received appropriate support and training and were knowledgeable about their roles and responsibilities. They were provided with ongoing training to update their skills and knowledge to support people with their care and support needs.
There were policies and procedures in place in relation to the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) to ensure that people who could not make decisions for themselves were protected. People told us that staff always asked for their consent before undertaking any task.
People were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts to ensure their dietary needs were met. There was a restaurant and a coffee shop in the complex which served a variety of meals, including a vegetarian option.
People’s health and wellbeing needs were closely monitored and the staff worked with other healthcare professionals to ensure these needs were met and to prevent hospital admissions. There was a well-being advisor who promoted good healthcare access for people using the service. They also provided a drop-in service where people could go to have their blood pressure or blood sugar taken. The well-being service has been recognised as best practice by several different national agencies. In addition there was a service available to people living with dementia and dementia-related conditions.
People were looked after by staff that were caring, kind and promoted their privacy and dignity. People’s rights in making decisions and suggestions in relation to their support and care were valued and acted on.
People’s needs were assessed and care plans gave clear guidance on how people were to be supported. Records showed that people and their relatives were involved in the assessment process and review of their care.
Staff supported and encouraged people to access the community and participate in activities that were important to them. We saw volunteers from the local community who worked at the service to support people with activities. There were links with the local churches and people accessed the local shopping areas. All the people we spoke with said there was a large and varied assortment of activities provided at the service that provided them with a sense of well-being. The provider has an annual programme of established events that everyone who used the service was invited to take part in. In addition, the provider also supported people wanting to pursue more active lifestyles. They had supported people to loop the loop in a glider, walk with wolves,perform on stage at Birmingham's Symphony Hallor wheelchair abseiling.
There was a process in place so that people’s concerns and complaints were listened to and these were acted upon. On the provider’s web site we saw they had a compliments and complaints page for people to complete if they were not satisfied with the service.
The provider empowered people to be involved in making decisions about how the service was run through a residents association and other interest groups.
People told us that the care they received had been agreed with them and that they had opportunities to give their views on the quality of care. People were satisfied that any concerns that they had would be listened to and acted on.
We found that the service was well managed and staff had received training to support them in meeting the needs of people who used the service. A member of staff told us that the training was very good. We saw that staff had received training in the safe management of medication and that their practice in administering medication was monitored to reduce the risk to people.
People told us they were pleased with the care they received and they were treated with dignity and respect.