Shenley Wood Village

Updated 12 June 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This comprehensive inspection took place on 17 and 18 April 2018 and was announced. We gave the provider 48 hours’ notice of the inspection. We did this we needed to be sure that a senior member of staff would be available to assist with our inspection.

One inspector carried out the inspection and an inspection manager.

Before the inspection the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We checked the information we held about this service and the service provider. We also contacted the Local Authority. No concerns had been raised.

During the inspection, we spoke with 12 people who used the service, two relatives and received feedback from one healthcare professional. In addition, we had discussions with eleven members of staff that included the manager, the care manager, the well-being advisor and activities coordinator and seven care and support staff.

We reviewed the care records of four people who used the service, six staff files and two medication records. We also looked at other records relating to the management of the service, such as quality audits.

.

Updated 12 June 2018

This inspection took place on 17 and 18 April 2018 and was announced. At our last inspection, on 17 March 2016 the service was rated Good.

At this inspection, we found the service remained Good in Safe, Caring and Responsive. The service had progressed to Outstanding in Effective and Well-led giving it an overall rating of Outstanding.

Shenley Wood Village provides care and support to people living in specialist ‘extra care’ housing. Extra care housing is purpose-built or adapted single household accommodation in a shared site or building. The accommodation is bought or rented, and is the occupant’s own home. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) does not regulate premises used for extra care housing. This inspection looked at people’s personal care and support service. Not everyone living at Shenley Wood Village was receiving personal care. CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’, help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, receive personal care we also take into account any wider social care provided.

Shenley Wood Village has 300 homes on site. Dependent on individual circumstances they can support people from housekeeping to personal care, including supporting people with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 42 people receiving support with personal care.

The service did not have a registered manager. However, there was a manager who had applied to register with CQC to become a registered manager. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

There was an all-inclusive approach to assessing, planning and delivering care and support. The service looked for innovative approaches to care and support, and how it should be delivered. New evidence-based approaches were used to support the delivery of high-quality care and support. Training was tailored to meet people’s individual needs and the provider recognised that the on-going development of staff skills, competence and knowledge was central to ensuring high-quality care and support.

People experienced extremely positive outcomes regarding their health and wellbeing. A well-being advisor was available to support people with anything that could affect their health and wellbeing and action was taken quickly to address this. There were champions within the service who actively supported staff to make sure people experienced good healthcare outcomes leading to an exceptional quality of life.

The provider and the management team were highly committed to ensuring people lived fulfilling lives and were protected from social isolation. The whole focus of people’s care was individualised and focused on promoting people’s independence as well as their physical and mental well-being. People were empowered to make their own choices and staff were highly motivated with a ‘can do’ approach which meant they were able to achieve very positive outcomes for people.

The management team demonstrated an excellent understanding of the importance of effective governance processes. There were excellent quality monitoring systems in place to enable checks of the service provided to people and to ensure they were able to express their views so improvements could be made. There was a high level of satisfaction with the service. There was strong leadership that put people first and set high expectations for staff. There was an open culture and a clear vision and values, which were put into practice. Staff were proud to work for the service and felt valued for their work. A positive culture was demonstrated by the attitudes of staff and management when we talked with them about how they supported people.

People continued to receive safe care. Staff had received training to enable them to recognise signs and symptoms of abuse and felt confident in how to report them. People had risk assessments in place to enable them to be as independent as they could be in a safe manner. Effective recruitment processes were in place and followed by the service. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs but some people expressed dissatisfaction with the use of agency staff at the service.

Staff were trained in infection control, and had the appropriate personal protective equipment to perform their roles safely. There were arrangements in place for the service to make sure that action was taken and lessons learned when things went wrong, to improve safety across the service

Staff demonstrated their understanding of the Mental Capacity Act, 2005 (MCA) and they gained people's consent before providing personal care. People's consent was gained before any care was provided. 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.

Staff were caring and had built open and honest relationships with people. They were knowledgeable about how best to communicate with people and to advocate for them and ensure their views were heard. People spoke of the family atmosphere at the service and the genuine interest staff took in their well-being. There was a strong culture within the service of treating people with dignity and respect and staff spent time getting to know people and their specific needs before they provided them with care and support.