Shannon Court

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

People were safeguarded from abuse. Most risks to people's health and wellbeing had been assessed but improvements were required to ensure the records were robust for staff to follow. Comments relating to staffing were variable with some people implying there were on occasions insufficient staffing levels at the service. At the time of our assessment there were enough staff deployed in line with staffing levels stated by the registered and deputy manager.

Staff recruitment records demonstrated relevant checks were completed before a new member of staff started working at the service. Staff received an induction, mandatory and specialist training, and regular supervision. Staff met good practice standards to ensure the proper and safe use of medicines. People were protected by the provider’s prevention and control of infection procedures.

This service scored 72 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

People and their relatives considered themselves and their family member to be safe. All people spoken with confirmed they felt safe and had no concerns about their safety whilst living at Shannon Court. Comments included, “I definitely feel safe living here” and “Yes, I think I am safe. If I wasn’t I’d speak to my family, I have no concerns.” A relative told us, “Nothing has ever happened to [person] here, [person] is the safest they could be here [Shannon Court].”

Staff had received training on how to recognise and report abuse. Staff were able to tell us about the different types of abuse and what to do to make sure people were protected from harm, including how to escalate concerns to the management team and external agencies, such as the Local Authority and Care Quality Commission. They were confident any concerns would be taken seriously and acted on by the provider and registered manager. Comments included, "I am confident in raising concerns to the management and they always listen" and "If I have concerns, I can go to the manager."

We were assured from our observations that people were supported safely and were safe from harm.

The registered manager was aware of their role and areas of responsibility to notify us and the Local Authority of any allegations or incidents of abuse at the earliest opportunity. This indicated there was an open and transparent reporting system in place to keep people safe from harm.

People and relatives told us staff supported them and their family member by managing identified risks to their safety. People told us they were supported by staff to use appropriate aids to mobilise and to have their personal care needs met.

Staff spoken with demonstrated an understanding of the individual risks posed to people being supported. Specifically, staff were able to tell us how they supported people who could become anxious and distressed, the preventative measures to be taken for people who were at risk of developing pressure ulcers, those people who were at nutritional risk and people who were at risk of falls or who experienced difficulty mobilising. Staff were able to explain how they ensured timely referrals were made to external organisations as needed where there were concerns.

We observed staff supporting people in a safe and caring manner, for example, whilst staff were assisting people to mobilise and to have their moving and handling needs met.

Most risks to people's health and wellbeing had been assessed, which identified the risks they could be exposed to, and the support needed to minimise the risks. However, these lacked the detail required to provide staff with sufficient guidance as to how the risks posed should be mitigated. This referred specifically to incidents when people could become anxious, distressed and exhibit behaviours that could place themselves and others at risk of harm, and where people had a catheter fitted. Where people were assessed to be at risk of dehydration and required their fluid intake to be monitored and recorded, information was not routinely completed to demonstrate people’s fluid consumption. This meant we could not be assured staff had all information required to manage the person's risks in a safe and effective way.

The registered manager was able to demonstrate the above had been identified and steps were being taken to address this with staff but recognised further improvements were still required. The registered manager wrote to us following our assessment and confirmed additional support was to be provided to staff through individual and group supervision and further training.

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

People’s comments about staffing levels were mixed. Positive comments included, “Yes, I think there are enough staff” and “I would say there are enough staff.” Where less favourable comments were recorded, these included, “They’re short staffed at times” and “I’m not sure there are always enough staff, but I am well looked after.”

Staff’s comments about staffing levels were variable. Whilst some members of staff felt there were sufficient numbers of staff on duty, others did not. For example, staff stated there were occasions at lunchtime whereby they were needed to assist and support 2 people to eat their meal at the same time because there were not always enough staff available to provide individual assistance. A member of staff told us, “We really need more staff.”

Staff told us they received a range of online and face to face training which met their individual learning needs. Staff stated they felt supported and valued by both the provider and the registered manager. Comments included, "The management are really supportive" and "We have supervision every 3 months. However, we can go and discuss any concerns at any time."

There was a steady staff team employed at the service with low agency usage. There were enough staff deployed within the service in line with staffing levels as stated by the registered manager. Observations throughout both days of our assessment demonstrated call alarms to summon staff assistance were responded to in a timely manner and staff were generally attentive to people’s needs. However, as previously highlighted and reported by staff, we observed 2 occasions whereby a member of staff was concurrently supporting 2 people to eat their lunchtime meal rather than providing individualised support. 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 observations of staff practice were to be conducted by the management team at lunchtime to ensure interactions by staff were appropriate to meet their individual needs.

Staff recruitment records demonstrated relevant checks were completed before a new member of staff commenced employment at Shannon Court. This included an application form, written references, proof of identification, confirmation of an applicant’s right to work in the UK and Disclosure and Barring Service [DBS] checks. DBS checks provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions.

Newly employed staff received an induction and were given the opportunity to ‘shadow’ more experienced staff to ensure they understood the routines of the service and their roles and responsibilities. Staff received mandatory and specialist training which was appropriate and relevant to their role, and this was completed in a timely manner. Staff had received formal supervision in line with the provider’s expectations, and this also included the registered manager.

People and relatives we spoke to, told us the service was kept clean. Comments from people included, ‘‘You only have to look at my bedroom to see how clean the home is” and “I think the care home is lovely and clean, I have no complaints.”

Staff confirmed they had received appropriate infection, prevention and control training and had sufficient supplies of Personal Protective Equipment [PPE].

Staff were observed during both days of our assessment to use PPE appropriately and when required. People were protected from the risk of infection because the premises and equipment were kept clean, and Shannon Court was free from malodours.

There was an effective approach to assessing and managing the risk of infection at the service, which was in line with current relevant national guidance. Infection, prevention and control audits were conducted at regular intervals, highlighting where the service was compliant and areas which required improvement. Infection, prevention and control practices were discussed as part of routine health and safety and staff meetings.

People told us they were happy with the way staff supported them with their medicines. People and relatives, we spoke with told us they had no concerns regarding the management of their or family member’s medicines. A person told us, “Staff are very good, I am always given my medicines and there is never any problem.”

The registered manager confirmed there was a medicines champion who was responsible for overseeing the service’s medicine processes and procedures, and ensuring it was managed in line with national and best practice guidance. Staff confirmed they had received appropriate medicines training and had their competency assessed at regular intervals to ensure their practice remained safe when supporting people with their medicines. A member of staff told us, "Our medicines competency is completed annually and this includes shadowing opportunities until we feel confident."

During our assessment staff administered people’s medicines appropriately and in line with current guidance. The medication rounds were evenly spaced out throughout the day to ensure people did not receive their medicines too close together or too late. Observation of staff practice demonstrated staff undertook this task with dignity and respect for the people being supported.

Medicines were stored correctly and safely in all but one instance. The latter was brought to the immediate attention of the registered manager and instant action was taken to resolve the matter. Medicine records were maintained to a good standard, and Medication Administration Records [MAR] showed people received their medicines as they should and in line with the prescriber’s instructions. PRN [“as needed”] medicine protocols were in place to ensure a person-centred approach was adopted by staff for medicines not taken regularly. The service ensured people’s behaviour when anxious and distressed was not controlled by excessive and inappropriate use of medicines.