We carried out a review of the data available to us about Swiss House on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Swiss House, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
Families were unable to visit the home at the time of the inspection due to an outbreak of COVID-19 in the home. Staff supported people to maintain contact with their relatives using video calls. The manager kept families informed through letters and emails.
Staff engaged people in activities such as singing hymns, making prayer books, fitness exercises and socially distanced discos to maintain their wellbeing.
People and staff were tested weekly for COVID-19. All test results showed negative results for all people and staff for the last two weeks meaning there was no longer an outbreak in the home.
The number of people in communal areas was restricted to promote social distancing.
The registered manager incorporated a questionnaire into staff meetings and supervisions to check staff knowledge relating to COVID-19 and share good practice. Staff were supported to discuss development ideas as well as their fears and concerns about COVID-19.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
Swiss House is a residential care home that accommodates up to ten people living with learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorder. At the time of our inspection there were nine people living at the home.
The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen. 'Registering the Right Support' CQC policy'.
What life is like for people using this service:
• People received safe support with their medicines by competent staff members. The provider had systems in place to respond to any medicine errors. The provider completed regular checks to ensure that people were receiving the right medicine at the right time and people’s medicines were stored correctly.
• The provider had systems in place to ensure the Care Quality Commission was notified of significant events in a timely manner and in accordance with their registration. The provider had effective systems to monitor the quality of the service they provided and to drive improvements where needed.
• The provider had systems in place to encourage and respond to any complaints or compliments from people or visitors. The provider, and management team, had good links with the local community which people benefited from.
• People received safe care and support as the staff team had been trained to recognise signs of abuse, or risk, and understood what to do to safely support people. Staff members followed effective infection prevention and control procedures. When risks to people’s health and welfare were identified, the provider acted to minimise the likelihood of occurrence.
• The provider supported staff in providing effective care for people through person-centred care planning, training and supervision. People were promptly referred to additional healthcare services when required. People were supported to maintain a healthy diet and had choice regarding food and drink. The environment where people lived was well maintained and suited their individual needs and preferences.
• People received help and support from a kind and compassionate staff team with whom they had positive relationships. People were supported by staff members who were aware of their individual protected characteristics like age and gender. People were supported to develop their independence.
• People participated in a range of activities that met their individual choices and preferences and that they found interesting and stimulating. People were provided with information in a way that they could understand. Policies and guidelines important to people were provided in an easy to read format with pictures to aid their understanding.
More information in Detailed Findings below.
Rating at last inspection:
Good overall with requires improvement for well-led (date last report published 08 January 2016). At that inspection we found the provider needed to improve their systems for monitoring the provision of people’s medicines and they needed to improve how they notified us of significant events. At this inspection we found they had made these improvements and therefore rated the key question well-led ‘Good’.
Why we inspected:
This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection, ‘Good.’ At this inspection we found the service was good in all key questions with an overall rating of ‘Good.’
Follow up:
We will continue to monitor all intelligence received about the service to ensure the next planned inspection is scheduled accordingly.
This inspection took place on 26 October 2015 and was unannounced. The inspection was carried out by two inspectors.
Swiss House provides care and accommodation for up to ten younger adults with learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorder and physical disabilities. At the time of the inspection there were seven people living at the home.
There was 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
Relatives of people living at the service told us they felt confident that the support provided to their relative was safe. Staff we spoke with had a clear understanding of how they would respond if they suspected abuse and knew how to whistleblow.
Staff had the skills, experience and training needed to meet people’s needs. Relatives told us they felt there were enough staff to meet their relative’s needs.
People’s ability to make decisions was considered in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 [MCA] and applications for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards [DoLS] authorisations had been made when required.
People using the service had sufficient food and drink to maintain their health and well-being.
People were supported to access health care professionals when required to meet their health needs.
Staff knew people well and where people were not able to communicate, staff understood the facial expressions people used in order to gain consent to care and support.
Staff maintained people’s privacy and dignity. People using the service were supported to access advocacy services.
Relatives told us they were involved in the planning for their family members care and staff knew and acted according to people’s preferences.
The complaints procedure was made available in a variety of formats to ensure people were able to understand how to make a complaint. Relatives were kept up to date with developments in the service.
Relatives spoke positively about the registered manager and were confident in management’s ability to deal with complaints or concerns. Staff received regular supervision to help them develop their skills and discuss any areas of concern.
Quality assurance audits were carried out by the registered manager but these were not always effective. Where issues were identified with medication, these were not acted upon to prevent the error happening again.
Surveys sent out to gain feedback on the service were being analysed by the service’s head office and the registered manager was not able to view these which meant that areas for improvement could not be acted upon.
Notifications that the registered manager is required to send to the Care Quality Commission about incidents that have happened at the service had not been sent.