Shire Oaks Court

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

The provider responded to changes in people’ needs and offered a person-centred approach to this. People felt involved with their care. There were end of life plans in place and people’s communication needs were considered so they could have information available to them in a format they understood.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People and relatives felt the care they received was individual to their needs. One relative told us, “There is a care plan and I have been involved in it.”

Leaders and staff understood the importance of treating people in a person-centred way. The registered manager told us about the importance of treating people as individuals and receiving care in line with this. A staff member said, “People are supported in a person centered way we ensure the care they receive is individual. Everything I do I speak with people and that’s how we plan from.”

We did not observe anything of concern during our site visit. The care and support people received was individual, people were offered choices and were involved with their day and the care they received.

People and relatives raised no concerns with the continuity of care they received. A relative said, “I’m absolutely delighted with this place. The nurses, the physio is all dedicated care. They make you feel very welcome.”

Staff and leaders were able to tell us the importance of continuity for people. One staff member told us, “We try to keep things as stable as possible for people, some people like a structured routine, if people prefer certain staff them that’s also important.”

As part of this assessment, we asked for feedback from the local authority and the integrated care board. The feedback was generally positive. No concerns were identified with the provisions of care, integration or continuity of care people received.

There were systems and processes in place to ensure people’s care was regularly reviewed and updated. The provider ensured there were systems in place to share this information or changes with staff so people could receive consistent care.

People and relatives raised no concerns with how information was provided for them.

Staff and leaders understood the importance of providing information to people and their families. Staff told us how people communicated in different ways and how this was recorded in people’s care plans. The registered manager told us information was available for people in different formats if they required this.

There were systems in place to ensure information was provided to people when needed. Care plans reflected the levels of support, and the ways people chose to communicate and how information should be made available to them.

People felt listened to and involved with their care. One person said, “If I had any concerns about anything, I would go up and tell them. I knock on the window and sometimes they sort things out.” Relatives raised no concerns.

Staff and leaders were able to tell us the importance of listening to and involving people. The registered manager explained the survey they completed with people to obtain feedback; they told us this was displayed on a ‘you said we did’ board in the home. Staff gave us an example of when people had requested a pool table in the home, and this had been purchased for them.

There were systems in place to ensure people were listened to and involved with their care. This included residents meeting and individual review meetings for people. We saw when people had made suggestions these had been considered. There was also a complaints policy in place, and this was available for people in different versions should they need it.

People raised no concerns with the access they had to care and treatment. Relatives confirmed to us, when needed people had access to this.

The registered manager raised concerns with us around the access people had to a GP. They told us they had shared their concerns with the ICB and they were helping them to resolve this.

As part of this assessment, we asked for feedback from the local authority and the integrated care board. The feedback was generally positive. The local ICB were aware of the concerns the home were having in registering new people with a GP and were working alongside the home to resolve this.

There were processes in place that the registered manager could consider if concerns arose. They had links with external agencies that they could engage with to raise concerns if needed.

People and relatives raised no concerns with their experiences of care.

The registered manager was aware of inequalities people living in the home may face and was able to tell us the action they may take when facing these.

There were systems in place to consider people’s experience in care.

People and their relatives raised no concerns with the planning of end-of-life care. Some people and relatives told us they had not wished to discuss this and this had been respected.

The registered manager told us and staff confirmed that people had end of life care plans in place and people and those important to them had been involved with this.

End of life care plans were in place for people when needed, they had been completed with people and those important to them, when they wished to. These had considered people’s choices and preferences during this time.