Shardale St Annes

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

This means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

The service held regular community meetings that clients attended and promoted the client voice within the service.

Client records that we reviewed reflected that these had been completed on an individual and personalised basis that reflected the client and their specific needs.

This service scored 64 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service held regular community meetings that clients attended and promoted the client voice within the service.

Client records that we reviewed reflected that these had been completed on an individual and personalised basis that reflected the client and their specific needs.

The service utilised client job roles which allowed the clients to have a voice and give them responsibilities within the service and its community. The service encouraged clients to have daily journals to record their thoughts and feelings for that day. Staff facilitated journals sessions with clients where they could share these reflections with the community.

Clients could have contact with their families and carers via a payphone. Clients were not allowed access to their own mobile phones as part of the agreement of them entering the service.

Managers advised that visits from families and carers would be facilitated after the client had been in the service for 3 weeks. The visiting time would be increased after the client had been in the service for 6 weeks.

Clients and staff did not inform us of any specific links with local organisations or community services that clients could access.

Client records were stored in a locked filing cabinet within the staff office.

Staff told us that information about specific clients would be shared with families and carers if they rang the service and staff had the appropriate consent from the client that information could be shared.

Managers stated that there had been two formal complaints made to the service in the 12 months prior to the assessment. The service had a process for managing complaints and timescales in which responses would be provided.

We requested any documentation around the two complaints as part of our additional information requests following the on-site assessment. We asked for this documentation to review how the complaints had been responded to and the timescales in which this had been done. We did not receive this documentation due to unforeseen circumstances that impacted on the Registered Manager’s ability to fulfil the information requests. We could therefore not be fully assured that the complaints had been investigated and managed appropriately.

Clients told us that, although they had not raised any formal complaints within the service, they believed and were confident that the service would manage any complaints appropriately.

Managers noted that some clients could struggle with reading and writing and the service would offer these clients support with this. Managers explained that the service had Dictaphones which could be used by clients to encourage and support them in recording their daily diaries.

At the time of the assessment the service had one client with a mobility issue who used a frame to mobilise safely. Managers stated that any potential mobility issues would be assessed before admission as, due to the layout and style of the building, they were aware that they needed to be realistic with what they could offer those clients and manage them safely. Managers noted that they had tailored some aspects to meet client needs, such as allowing clients who struggle with stairs to eat away from the dining room and doing groups in the quiet room. Managers noted that some potential clients did have to be declined because the service could not appropriately meet their needs.

The service had bedrooms on the ground floor which could be used for clients with mobility issues. The service had previously had a client who used a wheelchair.

The service had a lift in the building however, this was no longer in use within the service.

Staff described how discharge was planned for with clients and how they ensured that support was in place for clients, whether that was due to an expected or unexpected discharge.

We made an information request about the number of clients discharged by the service in the 12 months prior to the on-site assessment, along with the number of clients who had successfully completed their treatment. We also requested data around the average length of stay for the clients currently in the service. This information was not provided by the service due to unforeseen circumstances that impacted on the Registered Manager’s ability to fulfil the information requests.

Staff within the service promoted a culture in which the people using the service could be empowered to give their views. Managers noted that they tried to create an open and honest culture and community within the service.

Staff did not receive specific training around equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights as of the time of the assessment.

The service had an equality and diversity policy.

We were not informed of any ways in which the service considered and addressed barriers to access for specific communities and those with protected characteristics.

Staff created personalised care plans to account for the client’s needs, wishes and feelings. Clients that we spoke to told us that they felt involved in their care and treatment and had contributed to their care plans.

Where clients made the choice to exit the service unexpectedly or before their treatment had ended, the service had a process that staff were expected to follow, and we saw evidence that this was being used.