CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Shinewater Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Risks relating to nutrition, moving and handling, pressure care and equipment were assessed and reviewed. Inspectors also found safe medicine systems, enough staff and suitable infection-control arrangements.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had a wide range of training for complex needs, including PEG, catheter care and epilepsy. People received support with food, health appointments and specialist referrals when needed.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff supported people to make choices, communicate their wishes and remain as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and included people's communication methods, likes and dislikes. People were supported with activities, relationships, community access and complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had an open and person-centred culture. Managers used audits, staff checks, meetings and feedback to monitor quality and make improvements.
What inspectors found, September 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with all five areas rated Good.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 13 and 15 August 2019. One inspector and an expert by experience observed care, spoke with people, relatives, staff and visiting professionals, and checked care plans, medicines, recruitment, training and quality records.
The inspectors found that people were safe and protected from avoidable harm. Risks were assessed, medicines were managed safely, staffing was sufficient, and the home was clean. Staff had the training needed to support people with complex disabilities.
People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff supported choice, independence, communication, health needs, relationships and activities. The home had an open atmosphere, and people were involved in care planning and decisions about how it was run.
The overall rating was Good, with Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led all rated Good. Safe had improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection, while the other four areas remained Good. The overall rating was unchanged from the previous inspection.
Personalised care
Care was based on each person's needs, goals, choices and communication methods. Staff adapted their approach and involved people in planning and reviews.
“Care plans included detail which enabled all staff to provide consistent person centred care.” from the report
Independence and choice
People were supported to make everyday choices, take positive risks and do things for themselves. The home also provided accessible facilities and support to use the wider community.
“There was strong emphasis on supporting people to be as independent as possible and providing just the right amount of support.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw warm and respectful interactions. People and relatives described staff as compassionate, approachable and attentive.
“We observed warm, kind and caring interactions between people and staff.” from the report
Safe systems
The home had systems for managing risks, medicines, safeguarding, accidents and infection control. Staff training and competency checks supported safe care.
“Medicine procedures and systems were robust with staff competencies assessed to ensure high standards were maintained.” from the report
People's voices
People could influence the running of the home through meetings, forums, feedback and involvement in staff recruitment. Their suggestions had led to changes such as a breakfast bar and relaxation area.
“People were included in the recruitment process for new staff.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you assess and record my relative's specific risks, and how often will these records be reviewed?
- 02What training and competency checks will staff have for my relative's particular health needs, equipment and medicines?
- 03How will my relative communicate choices, discomfort or concerns if they are non-verbal or need communication aids?
- 04What activities, college, community access or contact with friends and family could you support my relative to continue?
- 05How will you involve my relative and our family in care reviews and decisions about changes in support?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, with care and accommodation both considered; the report says Safe improved from Requires Improvement and the other ratings remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 September 2019 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, January 2017
Rated Good overall; inspectors found caring, effective, responsive and well-led support, but Safe was Requires Improvement because some risk assessments lacked enough guidance.
This was an unannounced inspection on 08 November 2016. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, visitors and staff. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines records, staff files and other documents.
The overall rating was Good. Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Good. Inspectors found enough staff, kind and respectful support, personalised care plans, activities chosen by people and systems for medicines, complaints and quality checks.
Safe was rated Requires Improvement. Some risk assessments did not clearly explain how staff should support people safely. The report says improvements had been made since the previous inspection in staffing, record keeping and quality monitoring, but risk assessments still needed updating.
Improved staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to provide the support people needed. This was an improvement since the previous inspection.
“At this inspection there were sufficient staff to ensure people received the support they wanted and needed.” from the report
Respectful care
People said they were treated with dignity and respect. Staff noticed people's wishes and supported them to make their own decisions.
“People were treated with respect and their dignity was protected.” from the report
Personalised care plans
Care plans reflected people's individual needs, choices and communication methods. People were involved in writing and reviewing them.
“The care plans were specific to each person's needs and there was clear guidance for staff to follow when providing support.” from the report
Activities and choice
People chose whether to join activities, spend time in their rooms or go into the community. Activities had improved and an activity co-ordinator supported these choices.
“People decided how they spent their time; some people were supported to take part in activities, whilst others remained in their rooms.” from the report
Management and improvement
The home had reviewed its quality checks and used feedback from people, relatives and staff to plan changes. Inspectors found the management approach supportive.
“Quality assurance and monitoring systems were in place to identify areas were improvements were needed and action was taken if needed.” from the report
Risk assessments lacked detail
needs fixingSome risk assessments did not explain clearly enough how staff should provide safe support. One moving and handling assessment did not specify the hoist, sling, loops or how to protect a catheter.
“However, some risk assessments were not clear and did not have enough information and guidance for staff to ensure people were supported safely.” from the report
Occasional failure to knock
minorMost staff said they knocked before entering bedrooms, but one person said this did not always happen. The report says it was usually dealt with appropriately.
“Some knock and come in before I have said anything, but usually they are ok.” from the report
- 01Have all moving and handling risk assessments now been updated with the exact hoist, sling and loops each person needs?
- 02How do you make sure staff know how to protect a person's catheter during transfers?
- 03How do you check that staffing levels remain sufficient at busy times and during meals?
- 04What extra training has been provided to staff who were less confident completing daily records?
- 05How are people supported to choose activities, communication methods and time in the community?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, including discussions with 12 people, two relatives, two visitors and 10 staff, observations and checks of selected records. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 January 2017 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Shinewater Court
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- September 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 December 2010.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
19 live-in carers within about an hour of East Sussex
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £1,000 to £1,400 a week. 13 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“When he point blank refused to go into hospital for a life saving blood transfusion she talked him through the situation and agreed to go in the ambulance with him and stayed until he was settled.”
“Una felt safe, secure and loved in her time with Debbie which is a gift that I am eternally grateful for.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.