You are here

Swan Court Requires improvement

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 13 December 2019

About the service

Swan Court is extra care housing, providing personal care for up to 24 people with sensory and / or physical disabilities and older people, some living with dementia. People using the service lived in flats, housed within one building and linked to a residential home on one side.

At the time of the inspection six people were living in the service, four of these people received the regulated activity of personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

We found a repeated breach of Regulation 12 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

This was because checks that should have been carried out to ensure the safety of the service had not been completed regularly or accurately. This included medicine management which was not always safe as creams and lotions opening dates were not always recorded. Medicines stock control records were not always accurate. Improvements were made to the stock control records following our inspection. Water temperatures had not been recorded in line with the provider’s policy. Fire records and fire procedures were not completed in line with fire safety compliance and the provider’s policy.

We also found a repeated breach of Regulation 17 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. This was because the management oversight had not identified areas for improvement we found.

There were sufficient numbers of staff available. During the last inspection we made a recommendation about the need for improvements to the recruitment procedure. During this inspection we found this had improved. Staff recruitment systems minimised the possibility of employees providing unsafe care to people. Staff were supported by senior staff and received training and supervision to enable them to carry out their role’s. Staff had a positive relationship with people using the service. People described them as “Fantastic” and “Easy to get on with.”

The premises were clean, and systems were in place to protect people from the risk of infection. People who had specialist health needs for example, diabetes or epilepsy received support from external professionals. People were satisfied by the food they were offered in the service. People were supported to enjoy their meals and their nutrition and hydration was monitored to enable people to remain healthy. People’s needs were assessed, and the environment was clean and well maintained.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Resident meetings were held which offered people the opportunity to have their input into the way the service operated. They also participated in reviews of their care.

People’s cultural and religious needs were acknowledged. People’s preferences and dislikes were documented. Information related to people’s health needs was included in their care plans, this assisted staff to understand the impact of their health on the care being provided.

The service supported people with their communication needs and was compliant with the Accessible Information Standards. Accidents and incidents were clearly recorded, and investigations were undertaken to ensure the risk of repetition was minimised.

People and staff told us they thought the service was well-managed. Comments included “It is a good place to work, it’s not perfect but it’s a great place.”

Rating at last inspection and update

The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 21 September 2018).

The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve. At this inspection enough, improve

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 13 December 2019

The service was not always safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.

Effective

Good

Updated 13 December 2019

The service was effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.

Caring

Good

Updated 13 December 2019

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.

Responsive

Good

Updated 13 December 2019

The service was responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 13 December 2019

The service was not always well-led.

Details are in our well-led findings below.