Swanton House Care Centre Also known as 1-126608129

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

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 good. At this assessment we rated this key question as good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 65 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider treated people with kindness, empathy, and compassion, and respect their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Staff were observed treating people well and engaging with them. It was clear staff were familiar with people’s needs and understood their behaviours. Staff talked about deescalating challenging situations and providing the level of support people required.

Everyone we spoke with both relatives and people using the service said that staff were friendly and relatives told us they felt welcome on site and able to raise anything with staff. Family members who had a poor experience with a previous care provider told us the staff here were very kind and communication was really good. They commented on improvements they had seen in their family member’s health and wellbeing. One family member said, “Since being admitted they have been the happiest I have seen them in a long while.” They commented on how attentive staff were.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals and make sure that people’s care, support and treatment met their needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

The service offered care and support to a diverse group of people under one registration. Whilst people were supported to live well, we found activities were generic and not sufficiently adapted to people’s individual physical or mental health needs. We found care plans lacked details about people’s circles of support and aspirations. They also did not consider people’s ages or whether people would enjoy age-appropriate activities in the evenings in line with their needs. Care plans did not clearly evidence how people were involved and consulted in their individual plan of care. It was clear however that residents’ meetings and surveys were used to capture people’s experiences and ask people what they wanted to do.

The service offered a diverse range of training to care staff to be able to meet people’s specific needs in conjunction with other social care and health care professionals. Nurses both general and learning disability trained offered a wealth of experience and were trained in key competencies to ensure some tasks like taking blood could be completed in house.

Whilst people were supported to access essential health services, we saw limited evidence that people were supported to access other services which could support their development and manage their futures. We identified one person whose records said they had dementia, but no official diagnosis had been made or individual consideration of the impact this was having on their quality of life. Another person with a diagnosis of dementia was observed as being restless and able to tell inspectors what a full life they had previously but were now restricted in what they could do and were living with other people whose needs were not similar. Another person who was young had limited opportunities to go out and told inspectors all the things they use to do and liked doing. This feedback was consistent across units.

Swanton house provided activities for people on their individual units and within the social hub. Activity staff were employed to support care staff in providing suitable activities across the day and there was a social hub which was well attended. Staff told us however this was closed at the weekend and staff spoke of their limitations in providing activities in line with people’s needs. Staff and people using the service reported a variable experience of available activities and our observations were that activities in the hub were around the needs of groups rather than individuals unless people had one to one funding.

Some areas of the service offered people access to kitchen areas which enabled them to have a greater level of independence.

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff mostly responded to people’s needs in the moment and usually acted to minimise any discomfort, concern, or distress.

People were complimentary and generally voiced their satisfaction with their home and the staff supporting them. People liked their environment and food. Systems were in place to consult with people about their wider needs and activities and people spoken with said they were able to speak to any of the staff if they had concerns. Other people had family who could advocate for them and managers told us they were clear about the expectations of what they could and could not provide. This was documented in the statement of purpose and service users’ guides were available. A relative told us in regard to the Bluebell Unit. “I have to say the care they have received has been amazing, particularly the manager.” They went on to say that’ interactions were sometimes difficult with their relative due to distress behaviours, but staff shared photographs of activities they had undertaken.’

The provider did care about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff. They mostly enabled staff to deliver person-centred care.

Staff told us that they were supported to access the training and support that that they needed. Regular meetings were held where staff could share their views.

Most staff felt management were open and visible around the service. Staff said they were able to speak up. Staff retention was good, and staff were rewarded for long service and good performance was recognised. The senior leadership team were well supported by upper management and provided an effective on call system to staff on shift. Staff views were sought, and they had influence over how the service was managed.

The skill set of staff was appropriate to the needs of people using the service. Nurses and managers were upskilled to undertake different aspects of their role. Staff received training in a wide range of subjects including learning disability, autism, mental health needs, suicide prevention and de-escalation. Progression was more difficult due to high staff retention, but the service had staff champions where staff could follow their interests and support others in key areas of practice. Staff had opportunity to do NVQ or equivalent.