You are here

The Sheiling Special Education Trust Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 28 October 2016

The inspection took place on 3 and 6 October 2016.

The Sheiling Special Education Trust is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 21 people whilst they attend the college on the same site. At the time of our inspection there were 17 people living in two houses called Westmount and Watchmoor. The people living in these houses had complex support needs. This meant they needed intensive support related to many aspects of daily living such as their health, communication, their ability to relate to others and how they managed their emotions and experience of their environment.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. 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.

People had support and care when they needed it from staff who had been safely recruited and understood their needs. Staff were consistent in their knowledge of people’s care needs and spoke confidently about the support people needed to meet these needs. They told us they felt supported in their roles and had received training that provided them with the necessary knowledge and skills.

People were protected from harm because staff understood how to reduce the risks people faced. They also knew how to identify and respond to abuse and said they would be confident to do so.

People saw health care professionals when necessary. Support was provided to reduce people’s anxiety around health appointments and this resulted in more effective access for individuals. Records and feedback from a healthcare professional reflected that staff responded appropriately to both ongoing healthcare needs and health emergencies. People received their medicines as they were prescribed.

Staff understood how people consented to the care they provided and encouraged people to make decisions about their lives. Care plans and practice reflected the framework of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards had been applied for when people needed to live in one of the houses to be cared for safely but did not have the mental capacity to consent to this.

People were engaged with activities that reflected their assessed needs, preferences and strengths. This included individual and group activities both in the houses, grounds and the local area. Where people were working to achieve goals through these activities this was recorded in a way that supported people’s understanding of these goals.

Mealtimes were communal, social events. They had a clear beginning and end; people understood this routine and were encouraged to take part. Everyone described the food as good and there were systems in place to ensure people had enough to eat and drink. When people needed particular diets or support to eat and drink safely this was in place.

Quality assurance had led to improvements being made and people, relatives and staff were invited to contribute their views to this process. Staff, relatives and people spoke positively about the management and staff team as a whole.

People, relatives and staff were positive about the care and kindness they experienced within the Sheiling Special Education Trust. Staff were cheerful and treated people and visitors with respect and kindness throughout our inspection.

Inspection areas



Updated 28 October 2016

The service was safe. People were supported by staff who understood the risks they faced and spoke competently about how they reduced these risks.

There were enough, safely recruited, staff to meet people’s needs.

Relatives felt their loved ones were safe. People were supported by staff who understood their role in keeping them safe.

People received their medicines as prescribed.



Updated 28 October 2016

The service was effective.

People received care that promoted their human rights. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) had been applied for people who needed their liberty to be restricted for them to live safely in the home.

People were cared for by staff who understood their needs and felt supported and valued.

People had the food and drink they needed. Everyone told us the food was good.

People had access to health professionals.



Updated 28 October 2016

The service was caring. People received compassionate and kind care.

Staff communicated with people in a friendly and warm manner. People were treated with dignity and respect by all staff and their privacy was protected.

People were encouraged to make decisions and choices throughout the day.



Updated 28 October 2016

The service was responsive. People received care that was responsive to their individual needs and staff shared information to ensure they were aware of people’s current needs.

People enjoyed regular and varied activities that they planned with staff.

People were encouraged to share their opinions and feelings. Relatives and professionals told us they felt listened to and knew how to make complaints.



Updated 28 October 2016

The service was well led. Relatives, professionals and staff had confidence in the management.

There were systems in place to monitor and improve quality including seeking the views of people and relatives.

Monitoring had identified where improvements were necessary and action had been taken.

Staff were committed to the ethos of the organisation and were able to share their views with each other and the management.