You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 10 June 2014
Date of Publication: 1 July 2014
Inspection Report published 01 July 2014 PDF


Inspection carried out on 10 June 2014

During a routine inspection

This inspection was carried out by an adult social care inspector. At the time of this inspection three women lived at Sheldon House. We spoke with them, in small groups and individually, to obtain their views of the support provided. We also telephoned two relatives of women living at Sheldon House to obtain their views. In addition, we spoke with the registered manager and the two care staff on duty about their roles and responsibilities.

We gathered evidence against the outcomes we inspected to help answer our five key questions; is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on speaking with people using the service, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read our full report.

Is the service safe?

People supported by the service, or their representatives told us they felt safe.

We observed, and people told us they felt their rights and dignity were respected.

Systems were in place to make sure managers and staff learned from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.

We found that risk assessments had been undertaken to identify any potential risk and the actions required to manage the risk. This meant people were not put at unnecessary risk but also had access to choice and remained in control of decisions about their care and lives.

The home had policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) although no applications had needed to be submitted. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made and how to submit one. This meant people would be safeguarded as required.

Policies and procedures were in place in relation to the safe management of medication. Staff that administered medication had been provided with training in the safe handling of medication. This meant that people�s health and safety was promoted.

Is the service effective?

Before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes.

People�s health and care needs were assessed with them and their representatives, and they were involved in writing their plans of care. Specialist needs had been identified in care plans where required.

Staff were provided with training to ensure they had the skills to meet people�s needs. Staff were provided with formal individual supervision and appraisals at an appropriate frequency to ensure they were adequately supported and their performance was appraised. The manager was accessible to staff for advice and support.

Is the service caring?

We asked people using the service for their opinions about the support provided. Feedback from people was positive, for example, �they (staff) are good, very good,� �they (staff) give me the help I need, I am happy here,� �it�s good. I am all right� and "happy, fine".

Two relatives spoken with said they were satisfied with the care and support their relative was receiving. Their comments included "I can�t fault them. They are absolutely brilliant� and �they (staff) always keep us informed, (my relative) is very happy�.

When speaking with staff it was clear that they genuinely cared for the people they supported and had a detailed knowledge of the person�s interests, personality and support needs.

People using the service and their relatives completed an annual satisfaction survey. Where shortfalls or concerns were raised these were addressed.

People�s preferences and interests had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people�s wishes.

Is the service responsive?

People�s individual choices regarding how they spent their day were supported by staff.

People spoken with said they had no worries about living at Sheldon House. Information on how to make a complaint was provided to people and staff were aware of the procedure to support people if they wanted to make a complaint. We found appropriate procedures were in place to respond to and record any complaints received. People could be assured that systems were in place to investigate complaints and take action as necessary.

Is the service well-led?

The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care in a joined up way.

The service had a quality assurance system. Records seen by us showed that if shortfalls were identified they were addressed promptly. As a result the quality of the service was continuingly improving.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home and quality assurance processes were in place. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.