Shannon Court

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

At our last inspection in March 2022, the provider did not ensure people’s consent and best interest decisions had been obtained in line with legislation and guidance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. The service had made improvements and is no longer in breach of regulations.

People’s needs were assessed prior to their admission to the service and this information was used to inform their care plan and associated risk assessments. People were supported to access healthcare services and receive ongoing healthcare support. The service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

This service scored 71 (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 those acting on their behalf had been given the opportunity to participate in the pre-admission process. This included having people’s needs assessed prior to their admission to the service and being given the opportunity to visit Shannon Court. People were able to look around the surroundings and to meet staff and others living at the service. Comments recorded on a well-known external care home review website implied a relative’s family member had settled well once admitted to the service.

Staff told us how they got to know people using the service by reading information recorded within the person’s individual care plan and spending time with them.

People’s needs were assessed prior to their admission to the service. The assessment helped the management team assess and determine if the person’s needs could be met and if the environment was suitable for them. Information gathered was used to inform the person’s care plan and associated risk assessments. People’s protected characteristics under the Equalities Act 2010, such as age, disability, religion, and ethnicity were identified as part of their need’s assessment. Staff knew about people’s individual characteristics.

Most people spoken with indicated to us both verbally and through non-verbal cues they were happy with the care and support provided by staff. People told us staff were kind and caring. People told us they had enough to eat and drink and enjoyed the meals provided. Comments included, “The food here is nice” and “I like the food, I get enough” and “I like the food, and I get choice.”

Staff knew people’s nutrition and hydration needs, likes and dislikes. For example, staff were able to tell us who was at risk of choking or aspiration, who required a textured and specialist diet. Staff confirmed this information was recorded within the person's care plan.

Staff were able to demonstrate a good understanding and knowledge of how people using the service should be supported. However, staff’s practice did not always evidence this.

People’s nutrition and hydration needs were assessed and recorded within their care plan. However, fluid intake records required improvement as these showed people's fluid targets were not always met. No information was recorded to demonstrate how this was being monitored and addressed. We communicated this to the registered manager during feedback of our assessment findings. The registered manager wrote to us following our assessment and confirmed a meeting was planned with a nurse practitioner from the GP surgery to ensure each person’s dietary and hydration needs were reviewed. In addition, a meeting was to be held with team leaders, all staff were to receive additional coaching, training and supervision.

People and relatives did not raise any concerns about how staff and external services worked together.

Staff told us they worked well as a team and worked collaboratively with external services and agencies.

A healthcare professional spoke positively about the provider’s response to providing ongoing healthcare support to people using the service. They told us that staff sought their advice and guidance at the earliest opportunity and were proactive in following people’s individual recommendations to ensure the right care and support was delivered.

Information demonstrated the service worked with others, for example, the Local Authority, healthcare professionals and services to support people’s ongoing care provision.

People told us their healthcare needs were met and relatives confirmed they were kept up to date about their family members needs and the outcome of health-related appointments.

Staff were able to demonstrate how they supported people to stay well and recognised when a person's healthcare needs deteriorated. Staff told us they would raise any concerns with a care team leader or the registered manager as quickly as possible. An example was provided by a member of staff whereby they raised concerns to the management team when a person's anxious and distressed behaviours escalated. The member of staff told us effective action was taken which resulted in a positive outcome for the person using the service.

During the assessment we overheard staff talking to relatives on the telephone about their family members needs and the outcome of health-related appointments.

The service worked effectively within and across different organisations to deliver effective care, support, and treatment. Information recorded demonstrated people were supported to have access to a range of appropriate healthcare services and support as needed, such as, GP, chiropodist, optician, continence nurse, district nurse and dementia nurse specialist.

We did not look at Monitoring and improving outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

During both days of our assessment, we observed staff asking for people’s consent whilst supporting them and prior to undertaking care tasks. However, not all people using the service were provided with options and choice by staff supporting them. This referred to people not always receiving a choice of drinks or being given the option to watch the television or listen to music. We communicated this to the registered manager during feedback of our assessment findings. The registered manager wrote to us following our assessment and confirmed additional staff training and supervision had been arranged to help staff improve this area of their practice.

Staff confirmed they had received training relating to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff were aware of their responsibilities in gaining consent from the people they supported. Staff provided examples of how they involved people in key decisions about their care and how they ensured decisions were made in people’s best interests.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 [MCA] provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The MCA requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA. In care homes, and some hospitals, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards [DoLS].

We found the service was working within the principles of the MCA and if needed, appropriate legal authorisations were in place to deprive a person of their liberty. Decisions were made in people’s best interests with contributions from those close to them and relevant professionals. Any conditions relating to DoLS authorisations were clearly recorded and being met.