Swindon Intermediate Care Centre

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

This means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated as good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

We have not awarded this service a score for Responsive.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Responsive.

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

Nursing care plans we reviewed did not always clearly reflect person‑centred practice or individual goals, which meant staff did not always plan care consistently around people’s needs and wishes.

People and relatives gave mainly positive feedback. They described staff as supportive, caring, friendly and attentive. However, three people told us staff did not always deliver person‑centred care. One person said their family member “did not receive rehabilitation or one‑to‑one support” and felt unhappy with the care provided. The service recognised these concerns, investigated the complaint and shared learning with staff to improve person‑centred care delivery.

We observed therapy staff tailoring care to individual needs and preferences. Staff delivered personalised therapy programmes, supported daily living activities using adaptive equipment, and used communication aids for people with speech or cognitive difficulties.

Staff offered emotional support in line with people’s wishes and involved families where appropriate. Staff also made reasonable environmental adjustments, such as supporting people who preferred care in a side room.

During observations, staff adapted their approach to meet individual needs and responded appropriately to people’s preferences. We observed positive interactions between staff and people using the service.

Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect.

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

Managers planned and organised services to meet the changing needs of the local population.

Staff considered patients’ preferences, cultural needs and abilities in therapy, daily routines and discharge planning.

Discharge coordinators supported timely and safe transfers of care by working with GPs, social workers and nursing homes.

Wards worked with internal and external healthcare professionals to support continuity of care, including referring patients to community nursing teams for ongoing needs such as diabetes management.

Staff held weekly multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings to review care, share information and identify emerging risks.

Ward teams used daily safety huddles to identify and respond to immediate risks.

Staff understood and followed standards for mixed‑sex accommodation and knew when to report potential breaches.

The service provided facilities and premises that were appropriate for the care delivered, including ward environments designed to meet the needs of people living with dementia.

Staff used systems that supported access to specialist input, such as tissue viability services.

Staff understood and applied policies to meet the information and communication needs of people with disabilities or sensory loss.

Staff accessed interpreters or signers for patients, relatives and carers when needed.

Most people were satisfied with their care. However, four people told us communication between nursing staff, therapy teams and doctors could improve, and families were not always kept up to date with changes to care.

The service provided appropriate, accurate and up‑to‑date information in formats tailored to individual needs.

Staff ensured carers, families and commissioners received regular updates about patients’ progress.

Staff made notifications to external bodies when required.

Leaders accessed information to support their management responsibilities, including data on service performance, staffing and patient care. Leaders discussed this information in governance meetings.

Staff took time to explain information in a way people could understand and checked understanding.

Leaders ensured staff could provide information in alternative formats where needed, including visual aids and large print, and families supported people’s understanding where appropriate.

Staff made information about complaints and raising concerns accessible and easy to understand.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The service encouraged feedback and used complaints, concerns and compliments to understand people’s experiences and improve care.

In the last 12 months, the service received five formal complaints and three informal complaints, alongside 27 compliments across both wards.

People knew how to raise concerns or make a complaint, and information was accessible.

Staff managed complaints through a centralised system by logging them on Datix, investigating them within clear timescales and ensuring senior leaders provided oversight. Staff provided written responses to complainants and kept them updated where extensions were required.

Staff understood how to handle complaints appropriately and protected people from discrimination or harassment when concerns were raised.

Leaders informed staff of complaint outcomes and shared learning to support service improvement.

Leaders regularly visited the service to listen to staff concerns and held regular meetings during the 2025 service transition to keep staff informed and involved.

Leaders reviewed complaints and incidents quarterly, with shared learning circulated to staff through emails and team meetings and the intranet to support continuous improvement.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Managers and staff worked to ensure patients did not stay longer than necessary.

Staff held weekly long‑length‑of‑stay meetings to expedite discharges and followed up and minimised delays.

We observed discharge discussions where staff explored options for returning home, explained next steps and asked people whether they wanted their family involved in decision‑making.

Staff supported patients appropriately when they were referred to or transferred between services to maintain continuity of access.

Staff moved patients between wards only when there was a clear medical reason or when it was in their best interest.

The service provided access to a therapy gym to support patients’ rehabilitation and recovery.

Staff included home checks in discharge planning to ensure equipment was in place to support safe mobility, and they considered home security arrangements and care input where required.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff planned discharges carefully for people with complex health and social care needs to reduce inequity in access and outcomes.

Managers monitored delayed discharges, identified where delays occurred most frequently and took action to address them.

Staff and the wider organisation promoted a culture that empowered people using the service to share their views.

The provider carried out equality impact assessments on its policies and procedures to ensure they did not disadvantage vulnerable people or those with protected characteristics.

Staff completed training in equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Staff supported people to make decisions about their care, treatment and future.

Staff managed and communicated care for people nearing the end of their life in a sensitive and dignified way.

Staff involved people in discussions about what was important to them, including discharge planning and longer‑term care needs.

Staff considered people’s physical, mental health and social care needs when planning next steps and worked with the multidisciplinary team to support continuity of care.

Staff ensured all relevant healthcare professionals and organisations contributed to planning care and treatment for people with complex needs.

People told us they felt informed about their care and discharge arrangements. We observed staff taking time to explain treatment plans and expected outcomes during ward rounds.