You are here

The Shrubbery Requires improvement

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 2 April 2020

About the service

The Shrubbery is a care home for up to 15 men. It is one adapted building arranged across three floors. Each bedroom has either en-suite or a private access bathroom. There are shared facilities including lounges and a games room, as well as kitchen, utilities spaces and food stores. There are two offices within the building. The Shrubbery is also registered to deliver personal care to people who live in the community in their own houses or flats. At the time of the inspection they were not delivering personal care.

The service was registered before Registering the Right Support was developed. The service has not been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. The guidance ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service did not always receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them. The provider had not applied the principles and values of RRS.

People’s experience of using this service

People received support that reflected the level of risk they posed due to their offending histories. Risks linked with their medicines, or to areas other than offending, had not been clearly identified or addressed. Although staff were able to describe the steps they took to mitigate these risks, they were not captured in risk assessments or care plans.

People told us, and staff agreed, their experience of care was affected by high use of agency staff at the home. Permanent staff had been recruited in a way that ensured they were suitable to work in a care setting. Staff did not receive the training they needed to perform their roles, although they did receive regular supervision.

People told us, and records confirmed, their opportunities for activities and engagement outside the home were limited. We saw people had been supported to identify goals, but there were no detailed plans in place about how to support them to achieve their goals. We have made a recommendation about care planning.

The outcomes for people did not fully reflect the principles and values of Registering the Right Support as people were not supported to develop their independence and had limited choices in their day to day lives.

People were not supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and did not support them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service did not support this practice. People had not had their capacity to consent to their care assessed when there was reason to believe they may lack capacity to understand all aspects of their care.

The governance systems in place had failed to identify and address the issues we found during the inspection.

People told us they felt safe. Staff took action to ensure people’s safety if allegations of abuse were made, however, they had not always followed local safeguarding adults procedures. This was addressed during the inspection.

People told us, and we saw, staff knew people well and supported them in a kind and sensitive way. Staff behaviour reflected the ethos of the provider that no one should be disadvantaged by their past behaviours.

People were supported to access specialist services, and to have their health needs met. People were supported to have their nutrition and hydration needs met, although people were not always happy with the menu options.

People were supported to have their dignity upheld. People’s protected characteristics were respected and people felt safe to disclose their sexuality and gender identity. People knew how to make complaints and the provider investigated these thoroughly.

The provide

Inspection areas


Requires improvement

Updated 2 April 2020

The service was not always safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 2 April 2020

The service was not always effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 2 April 2020

The service was not always caring.

Details are in our caring findings below


Requires improvement

Updated 2 April 2020

The service was not always responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 2 April 2020

The service was not always well-led.

Details are in our well-led findings below.