Shockerwick House Care Home

Updated 4 September 2020

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

This was a targeted inspection looking at the infection control and prevention measures the provider has in place. As part of CQC’s response to the coronavirus pandemic we are conducting a thematic review of infection control and prevention measures in care homes.

This inspection took place on 7 August 2020 and was announced. The service was selected to take part in this thematic review which is seeking to identify examples of good practice in infection prevention and control.

Updated 4 September 2020

Shockerwick House is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The home is an 18th Century listed detached building that stands in twelve acres of landscaped gardens. It is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 38 older people. At the time of the inspection 23 people were living at the service.

The inspection took place on 30 November 2018 and was unannounced.

There was a registered manager in post. 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.

At our last inspection we rated the service Good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of Good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

Staff had been trained to keep people safe. People using the service and their relatives told us they felt safe. Care plans contained risk assessments and when risks were identified the plans provided clear guidance for staff on how to reduce the risk of harm to people. Incidents and accidents were reported and analysed to identify trends. There was evidence that lessons were learned when incidents happened.

Safe recruitment procedures were in place and there was enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs.

Medicines were managed safely. The environment was exceptionally clean.

Staff were trained to undertake their roles. Staff had regular supervisions with a supervisor. People’s nutritional needs were met and people told us the food was “excellent.”

Staff remained knowledgeable about the Mental Capacity Act 2005. 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.

We observed many positive interactions between people and staff. People spoke highly of the staff and staff spoke positively about their roles. Regular feedback was sought from people.

Some aspects of care plans were person centred and contained details of people’s choices and preferences for how they wanted to be supported; however, this was not seen consistently. Although staff told us people were involved in care plan reviews, this was not documented.

There was a complaints procedure in place. Complaints were recorded and investigated appropriately.

There were robust quality assurance processes in place; however, these had not identified some of the issues we noted.

People and staff unanimously, spoke highly of the registered manager who they described as a strong leader with high standards. Staff told us morale at the service was good and that they felt valued by the provider.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.