Rated Care Homes

Shinewater Court

G

Good

Rated on

Rating from the Care Quality Commission.

At a glance

  • 4 ratings

    First rated Requires improvement in 2015, most recently Good in September 2026.

  • 1 month

    since the latest rating was published.

  • 214 of 258

    rated care homes in East Sussex are rated Good, like this one.

Shinewater Court: inspection record

Care home, 39 beds, East Sussex

Rated Good in September 2026.

Shinewater Court: inspection record: inspection ratings by year, 2015 to 2026
201520162017201820192020202120222023202420252026
Overall
Safe
Effective
Caring
Responsive
Well-led

Ratings published by the Care Quality Commission.

Compare nearby

  1. G
    Greensleeves Good, 0.4 miles away
  2. G
  3. G
  4. G
  5. G
    Three Gables Residential Care Home Good, 1.2 miles away

See all care homes in East Sussex

What inspectors found

From the Care Quality Commission's assessment published 10 September 2026 (assessment visit 23 July 2026). Quoted under the Open Government Licence.

Our view of the service

About the service

Shinewater Court is a care home that accommodates up to 37 people in a purpose-built service. At the time of this assessment, they had 37 people living there.

  • Safe Good
  • Effective Good
  • Caring Good
  • Responsive Good
  • Well-led Good
Read the rest of CQC's summary

Who the service is for

Shinewater Court specialises in providing personal care and support to people with a range of physical disabilities. Some people lived with cerebral palsy, spina bifida and other disabilities following accidents or a stroke resulting in an acquired brain injury.

This service also supported people with a mild learning disability if this was secondary to their physical needs and staff were suitably trained to ensure people’s individual needs were met.

Key findings

We carried out this assessment on 30 July and 6 August 2026. This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard. Instead, our findings focus on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.

People and their relatives supported the view that they were safe at Shinewater Court. The service was welcoming and presented as an inclusive environment on entry. A relative said,“I knew as soon as I came into this service it was the right place for them, so welcoming and homely; the staff were so welcoming.”

Risks to people’s health and safety had been assessed and responded to in ways that minimised risks without restricting people’s choice. Staff responded to accident and incidents quickly, and ensured information was shared to support people’s ongoing safety. Any concern that people were at risk of harm, abuse or discrimination, was highlighted quickly and referred to safeguarding appropriately. This ensured people’s safety and well-being.

The environment was well designed and adapted to support people with a physical disability. It was well maintained with appropriate checks and risk assessments followed up.

People were supported by enough staff who had the skills, knowledge and experience to support them safely and to meet their specific health and care needs. Records confirmed appropriate recruitment procedures were followed. Staff completed regular training to ensure they had relevant skills and knowledge. A staff member told us, “We are supported with extra training if and when needed.” The registered manager reviewed staffing levels and skill mix to reflect people’s varied needs. For example, taking account of people’s emotional and social well-being.

Medicines were handled safely and people received their prescribed medicines at the correct times. Staff competencies were assessed and practice seen was safe. Medicines were stored in individual locked cupboards and regular checks and audits supported safe storage and administration.

The assessment process before admission was thorough and took account of people’s varied complex care needs, ensuring a suitable placement. A staff member said, “When people move in adaptations are made to people’s rooms as they want and need, very individually specific.” Health needs were fully assessed along with health care professionals to support evidenced based care. A visiting professional praised the staff in this approach and the outcomes achieved, “The Shinewater team have endeavoured to support with this, and this has been very effective.”

Staff ensured people had maximum choice and control over their lives and were at the centre of any decisions about care and support. Each person had an allocated key worker to facilitate individual choice. The registered manager confirmed everyone had capacity to make choices for themselves given enough time. A staff member confirmed, “We don’t do anything without consent, people who are not able to verbalize can show their agreement or not in other ways.”

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. Staff and management worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions they had choice control and freedom over their lives.

People were supported by caring and kind staff who promoted choices in a way people understood. Staff were keen to promote Shinewater Court as a community that provides an inclusive safe and caring environment. Relatives and friend involvement was given a high priority, with regular events held for both, and a welcoming approach to visitors. A staff member told us, “Nothing is ever too much trouble for the people we support. We often provide hotel like services.”

People’s independence and dignity was well promoted by staff. A staff member said, “It’s a priority to support independence and to give people purpose. Care records confirmed staff followed a proactive approach to independence and rehabilitation. Visiting health professionals confirmed this approach, “The relationship between the team and their residents is friendly and caring.They encourage autonomy and independence.”

People’s individual needs and preferences were accommodated. This included supporting people to have full and active lives. People were able to choose what they wanted to do, this included choosing from the events, activities and entertainment that were provided within the service.

The registered manager provided a stable and effective leadership for the service. They led by example and had regular contact with people and staff receiving daily feedback from both. There was a positive culture established where people and staff felt listened to.

Quality tools were used to monitor and review and improve the standard of care. Although all complaints were responded to and formal complaints were recorded, informal complaints were not well documented.

  1. Safe

    Good

    Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question as good. At this assessment the rating has remained as good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

  2. Effective

    Good

    Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. At our last assessment we rated this key question as good. At this assessment the rating has remained as good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

  3. Caring

    Good

    Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. At our last assessment we rated this key question as good. At this assessment the rating has remained a good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect and involved as partners in their care.

  4. Responsive

    Good

    Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs. At our last assessment we rated this key question as good. At this assessment the rating has remained as good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

  5. Well-led

    Good

    Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture. At our last assessment we rated this key question as good. At this assessment the rating has remained as good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

Questions to ask when you visit

  1. Ask to see the most recent Care Quality Commission (CQC) report and what the home did about any points in it.
  2. Visit at different times of day, including a mealtime.

Registration details

Registered manager
Anita Cobb
Registered with the CQC since
What it provides
Care home service without nursing
Who it supports
Older People, Physical Disability, Younger Adults

Inspection report

Read the full inspection report (opens the Care Quality Commission website)

6 inspection reports, latest 10 September 2019. Latest assessment published 10 September 2026; the Care Quality Commission's newer assessments are published on its website rather than as reports.

The rating is the Care Quality Commission's. We show it as published and do not change it.

Who runs it

Provider
The Disabilities TrustBrand: Disabilities Trust
Ownership type
Organisation
Companies House number
02334589 (opens Companies House)
Charity number
800797

The Disabilities Trust runs 16 services in England, 5 of them in the South East. 13 are rated Good or Outstanding, 2 are rated Requires improvement or Inadequate and 1 has no rating yet.

Other services run by The Disabilities Trust

  1. O
    Jane Percy House Outstanding. Care home, Northumberland, North East
  2. G
    Brain Injury Rehabilitation Trust - Bristol Road Good. Care home, Birmingham, West Midlands
  3. G
    Brain Injury Rehabilitation Trust - Cook Close (Dover Court) Good. Care home, Essex, East of England
  4. G
    Disabilities Trust - 9 Twyford Lane Good. Care home, Milton Keynes

See all 16 services run by The Disabilities Trust

Getting help from East Sussex County Council

The council can assess what care someone needs and tell them what help with the cost they may get.

Checked on the council's website, November 2026.

Common questions

Does Shinewater Court provide nursing care?
No. The Care Quality Commission lists Shinewater Court as a care home without nursing.
How many beds does Shinewater Court have?
The Care Quality Commission's register lists 39 beds at Shinewater Court.
When was Shinewater Court last inspected?
The Care Quality Commission's latest rating for Shinewater Court was published on 10 September 2026.
Who runs Shinewater Court?
Shinewater Court is run by The Disabilities Trust. It runs 16 services in England, 5 of them in the South East.
What is Shinewater Court's CQC rating?
Its overall rating from the Care Quality Commission is Good, published on 10 September 2026.