Swanton House Care Centre Also known as 1-126608129

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

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 remains good. This meant people's needs were being met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 71 (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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always demonstrate how they worked in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Changes to people’s needs were often identified but we could not always see from records how things were followed up with the relevant professionals or their advice followed. For example, we saw from records that an epilepsy monitoring alarm should be considered but there was no recorded follow up. We also found equipment recommended was not in use as had not been signed off. Reviews took place but these did not always pick up on things from the previous month or if any changes were needed. The provider audits highlighted records were not always robust, but the service was moving to an electronic recording system which was being trialed, and it was hoped by the service that this would be more intuitive prompting staff when updates or actions were required.

Most people and relatives spoken with felt that the care and support provided was good. Health care professionals were engaging and supported the service well providing advice, and were on site monthly, or as required, as well as having weekly meetings to ascertain any risk or changing needs. We found the managers spoke to relatives and kept them informed of anything out of the norm, and to update them regarding any planned events

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

Community access was limited due to transport and funding restrictions, but the service did have its own transport. Relatives told us staff prioritised appointments and people had regular health checks. The service put on community focused events to encourage engagement where possible. The registered manager provided evidence that consideration was given to its location when considering new admissions to ensure the setting was appropriate to need and in recognising that some people benefitted from a rural setting with its own land.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Changes in people’s needs were not always completed in an accessible format or all documents cross referenced to ensure they did not contradict each other. We saw picture menus but could not see how communication was fully accessible.For example, now and next boards, computer applications, and social stories are examples of good practice, and we did not see them being fully utilised. Communication plans varied in detail and did not all include clear guidance for staff on how to communicate with people who had sensory needs and, or visual impairment.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

Regular feedback was sought from people, relatives, staff and professionals through surveys and meetings. The outcome of surveys were limited due to the lack of a representative response. However relatives told us they felt able to raise concerns and these were always dealt with immediately. Resident meetings were held to discuss people’s short-term needs such as activities and menus. The registered manager shared compliments but told us no complaints had been received. We asked them to consider reviewing their recording to ensure concerns and actions were effectively recorded.

The provider mostly ensured that people could access the care, support, and treatment they needed when they needed it. Whilst the provider helped ensure people’s needs could be met, we were concerned that care plans and risk assessments were not always up to date so they highlighted whether needs were being met or if there were gaps in provision. We were however assured by actions the registered manager took in response to our feedback.

Staffing levels were good and enabled staff to respond to people's assessed needs and preferences which were discussed with people at their review, resident of the day and residents meetings.We did feel however that increases in 1-1 funding could be indicated by improved record keeping showing high levels of need staff were meeting.

Staff and leaders always actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was tailored in response to this.

People had access to professional support and mental health reviews, and the service tried hard to support people to overcome barriers they had faced in the past particularly in accessing services. Close working with other teams helped to ensure people had improved health outcomes and support to reduce the impact of poor lifestyles.

People were not always supported to plan for the future which included thinking ahead and end of life care.

Care plans in one case had multiple RESPECT forms, (Recommended summary plan for emergency care and treatment,) and these did not provide evidence of consultation with people and, or their families where relevant about their wishes. From the care plans we reviewed there was little or no documentation in regard to changes in people’s health and their wishes in terms of care and treatment in the future. This was despite many people having chronic or long-term health conditions.