You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 29 December 2018

We visited Swallow Lodge on the 26 and 30 October 2018, the inspection was announced. We gave the provider 24 hours’ notice of our visit, as we wanted to be sure the registered manager, staff and people who lived at the service were available to talk with us. The service is registered to provide accommodation for a maximum of eight people with a learning disability. People stay at the service to receive respite care, and over a period of a year, up to 60 people use the service. On the 26 October there were eight people using the service and on the 30 October there were four people using the service. Swallow Lodge also supports five people with personal care who live in a separate supported living unit. During our inspection we looked at both these services.

There was a registered manager in post who was available throughout the inspection. 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.

The people using the service were protected from harm as the provider had robust processes in place to ensure their safety. Staff supporting people were aware of their responsibilities in relation to protecting them from abuse. They had received appropriate training to support their understanding of any safeguarding issues. The registered manager reported any issues of concern to both the CQC and the local safeguarding teams and worked in an open and transparent manner. There were clear processes in place to ensure lessons were learnt following any incidents or events.

The risks to people’s safety were clearly identified with measures in place to reduce these risks. The environment and essential equipment were well maintained and met the needs of the people who used the service.

People were supported by well-trained and competent staff in sufficient numbers to keep them safe. Their medicines were managed safely and people were protected from the risk of infection through good hygiene practices, and staff knowledge of reducing the risks of cross infection.

People’s rights were protected under the Equality Act. They were supported to maintain a healthy diet, with staff showing good knowledge of their nutritional needs. Staff were supported with appropriate training for their roles.

People received support with their health needs through well-developed links with local health professionals.

Staff sought consent from people before caring for them and they understood and followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act, 2005 (MCA). The person was supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People were treated with kindness and care by staff who supported them with respect and dignity. Staff developed positive relationships with people in their care.

People could maintain relationships with people who were important to them, and relatives felt their views and opinions about their family member’s care were listened to.

The care people received was person centred and met their individual needs. People were supported to take part in a range of social activities both at the service and in the local community. There was a complaints procedure in place and people and their families knew who to complain to should they have any issues.

The service was well led, the registered manager was visible and supportive towards the people in their care, their relatives and the staff who worked at the service. The quality assurance systems in place were used effectively to monitor aspects of care. The registered manager and provider responded positively to changes and used information to improve the service and care people rec

Inspection areas



Updated 29 December 2018

The service was safe.

People were kept safe and the risk of abuse was minimised because the provider had systems in place to recognise and respond to allegations or incidents. The risks to people�s safety were regularly assessed and measures were in place to reduce risks and promote their independence. They were supported by adequate numbers of staff and received their medicines as prescribed. Medicines were managed safely and staff administering medicines were provided with training to ensure they were safe to do so. People lived in a clean and hygienic service.



Updated 29 December 2018

The service was effective.

People were supported in line with the Equality Act, they were supported by staff who received appropriate training and supervision. They lived in a service that met their needs in relation to the premises and adaptions were made where needed. People made decisions in relation to their care and support and where they needed support to make decisions, their rights were protected under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People were supported to maintain their nutrition and their health was monitored and responded to appropriately.



Updated 29 December 2018

The service was caring.

People were supported by staff who were kind and caring, and showed a good knowledge of their preferences and choices. They and their relatives were supported to be involved with the development of their care. People had access to advocacy information should they require this and staff respected people�s rights to privacy and treated them with dignity.



Updated 29 December 2018

The service was responsive.

People received individualised care and had access to a range of social activities both in the service and in the community. They were provided with information in a form which met their needs. People and their families knew who they could complain to if they had any issues and staff knew what to do if issues arose.



Updated 29 December 2018

The service was well led.

There was an open and transparent culture in the service where people were listened to and staff were valued. There were robust governance systems in place to monitor the quality of the service. The management team worked to improve and sustain the quality of the service and worked with external health professionals to share knowledge to improve people�s care.