Swindon Intermediate Care Centre

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

This means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated as good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

We have not awarded this service a score for Well-led.

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

The service had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

Staff knew and understood the provider’s vision and values and demonstrated how they applied them in their work.

Staff on the inpatient wards demonstrated a shared understanding of the provider’s values in their day-to-day practice. We observed staff treating people with dignity and respect, showing compassion in their interactions and taking time to listen to what mattered most to people.

Staff worked collaboratively within multidisciplinary teams to support people’s care, treatment and discharge planning.

Staff contributed to discussions about the service strategy, particularly during periods of change.

Staff explained how they delivered high‑quality care within the available budgets.

The service had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

Leaders demonstrated the skills, knowledge and experience required to perform their roles.

Ward managers understood people’s needs, risks and day‑to‑day pressures and used this knowledge to support safe and effective care.

Leaders regularly spent time on the wards and engaged with staff through walkarounds, safety huddles and team meetings.

Leaders showed compassion when managing incidents and supported staff wellbeing following challenging events.

Leaders promoted staff wellbeing through supportive supervision and access to support services.

Leaders demonstrated a good understanding of the services they managed and clearly explained how teams delivered care.

Leaders maintained visibility within the service and remained approachable for patients and staff.

Leaders provided development opportunities for staff. For example, they supported a healthcare assistant (HCA) to complete a nurse associate degree and then progress to a top‑up nursing degree, enabling career progression into a registered nursing role.

The service fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

The service enabled patients and carers to give feedback in ways that met their individual needs.

Managers and staff accessed feedback from patients, carers and colleagues and used it to make improvements.

Staff involved patients and carers in decision‑making about service changes.

Patients and staff met with members of the senior leadership team to share feedback.

Staff described a positive speaking‑up culture, where they felt safe and supported to raise concerns without fear of detriment.

Staff gave examples of raising concerns with their managers.

Staff accessed the freedom to speak up policy, which explained how to raise concerns and what to expect afterwards.

Staff used multiple channels to engage with senior leaders, including monthly all‑colleague online meetings.

The service valued diversity in their workforce. They work towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who work for them.

The provider operated a refer‑a‑friend scheme, which supported organic recruitment, strengthened workforce diversity and reduced reliance on agency staffing.

Leaders used apprenticeship levy funding effectively to support learning and development opportunities, enabling staff from diverse backgrounds to access training and career progression.

The provider established career development pathways that enabled staff to progress from band 2 to band 7 roles.

The service received the Armed Forces Covenant Bronze Award in 2026 in recognition of its support for veterans, reservists and Armed Forces families.

Staff reported feeling treated fairly and respectfully, and managers considered individual circumstances when providing support or making reasonable adjustments.

Leaders supported overseas applicants by providing guidance on right‑to‑work applications and considering sponsorship on a case‑by‑case basis, widening access to employment opportunities.

Staff applied for flexible working arrangements to support personal circumstances, such as caring responsibilities.

The provider carried out equality monitoring to ensure the workforce reflected a diverse population and the needs of the patient group.

The service had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and share this securely with others when appropriate.

The provider established governance structures and clear frameworks for discussion at ward, team and directorate meetings.

Leaders shared learning from incidents, complaints and safeguarding concerns through regular governance arrangements.

Leaders engaged with external stakeholders, including the local authority and local Integrated Care Board.

The provider implemented the Patient Safety Incident Response Framework (PSIRF), and staff acted on learning from deaths, incidents and patient safety reviews.

Leaders maintained oversight of risks, issues and performance and reviewed these regularly through the monthly Quality and Safety Committee. The committee monitored quality assurance action plans, the clinical audit programme, incident reviews, patient safety investigation reports, safety alerts, and NICE guidance and policy reviews.

Leaders held monthly Clinical Governance Meetings, which all staff could attend. We reviewed April 2026 meeting minutes, which included performance, incidents, complaints, risks and patient safety reviews.

Team managers accessed information to support their management roles, including data on service performance, staffing and patient care.

Staff completed local clinical audits that provided assurance, and they acted on audit findings when required.

The service developed plans for emergencies, such as adverse weather, power failure and flu outbreaks.

Staff maintained information governance systems that ensured the confidentiality of patient records.

Leaders ensured information was accessible, timely and accurate, and used it to identify areas for improvement.

The service shared information with external organisations effectively and in a timely way, including reporting accidents and incidents to relevant authorities, such as the CQC.

However, despite identifying areas for improvement through audits, such as mandatory training and care plan quality, leaders did not always address poor practice and compliance effectively.

The service understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services work seamlessly for people. They share information and learning with partners and collaborate for improvement.

Directorate leaders engaged with external stakeholders, including commissioners and Healthwatch.

Patients and staff met with members of the senior leadership team and commissioners to provide feedback.

Records from multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings demonstrated collaboration with family members, key stakeholders and care teams throughout the patient journey.

The service worked closely with local authorities and voluntary sector organisations to ensure services met people’s needs.

The service appointed a quality and engagement lead to enhance patient experience, promote involvement in care and support service improvements.

The service focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research.

Staff were given the time and support to consider opportunities for improvements and innovation and this led to changes, for example staff reviewing pressure ulcer data to improve training, documentation and equipment provision.

Staff had opportunities to participate in research.

Innovations were taking place in the service.

Staff used quality improvement methods and knew how to apply them. Recent quality improvement projects included a thematic review of falls, needlestick injuries and medicine administration. Improvements from these projects included increased staff training, competence and confidence on the wards.

Staff participated in national audits relevant to the service and learned from them.