Archived: Swanland House

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people who used the service and the staff who supported them and from looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People told us that they were consulted about their care and were able to make their own decisions about life in the home. People felt staff respected their privacy and dignity. We found people were being looked after by friendly, supportive staff within a warm and homely environment. Care was personalised and reflected people's choices and decisions. Care records were up to date.

People told us 'We get our medicine on time and when we need it' and we found that appropriate arrangements were in place in relation to recording, handling and safely administering medicines to people who used the service.

The manager set the staff rotas. Records showed the manager had taken people's care needs into account when making decisions about the number of staff the service required; the particular qualifications, skills and experience staff would need.

Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs had been assessed and care plans were in place. There was some evidence of people being involved in assessments of their needs and planning of their care. People said they could discuss their care with the staff or manager and on the whole felt well supported and cared for.

One person who used the service told us 'I am very satisfied with my care, the food is okay. I get well cooked meals and there is a choice if you don't like what is on the menu. I get help from the staff when I need it, you only have to ask and they cannot do enough for you.'

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that care workers showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. We spoke to two people about the care and support they received and three visitors.

One person said 'I come to visit my relative every day and I am always made welcome by the staff. I can stay for meals if I want to and I get to spend quality time with my relative. Whenever I visit I find X is well dressed for the time of year; they have regular baths and their hair is washed. The most important thing is that the staff include X in their conversations even though X cannot always communicate back. X was always a really social person and loved to chat with others. I find that X is taken to sit with other people in the lounge so that X can enjoy the conversations going on around them.'

Feedback from people who used the service and relatives was obtained through the use of management checks and satisfaction questionnaires completed after the care review meetings which were held every six months. This information was analysed by the provider and where necessary action was taken to make changes or improvements to the service.

Is the service responsive?

People and relatives we spoke with said they were confident about using the complaints system if they needed to. They told us that they would speak to the staff or the manager about any issues and that action was taken quickly to resolve any problems. We saw that there were two complaints documented within the last year; both had been investigated and resolved by the manager. People could therefore be assured that complaints would be investigated and action taken as necessary.

Is the service well led?

The service had a quality assurance system, records seen by us showed that identified shortfalls were addressed promptly. As a result the quality of the service was continuingly improving.

Staff told us they were clear about their role and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home and quality assurance processes were in place. This helped to ensure people received a good quality of service at all times.

People were supported through a care planning process to have their needs met; this included liaison with other health professionals to ensure people's health needs were met.

People commented that there were limited activities available within the home, although staff told us there was an activities person employed by the home.

People commented that there was limited choice with regard to the food provided in the home but that the food was good. We observed that lunchtime was a relaxed experience and people were offered appropriate support.

The medication systems were not robust and records in relation to the handling of medication were not all correct or up to date.

There was a quality assurance system in the home which included obtaining the views of people who lived in the home.

There was a complaints system was available to staff but details on how to complain and people's rights had not been provided in a suitable format to people who lived in the home or their relatives.