Swanholme Court

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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were 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.

People were involved in their care and supported to make decisions about how this was delivered. Staff described how they worked with people and, where appropriate, their relatives to agree care and support, to ensure this reflected people’s wishes.

Relatives told us they were kept informed about people’s care and had opportunities to be involved in discussions and reviews. They described staff as listening to their views and supporting care in a way that reflected people’s preferences.

Care planning processes supported a person‑centred approach, with people and their relatives given opportunities to be involved in reviews and discussions about care.

Staff demonstrated an understanding of the importance of involving people in decisions and adapting care to meet their individual needs, helping people maintain choice and control over their care.

People received coordinated care which met their needs and supported continuity. Systems were in place to ensure care was organised and delivered to meet people’s needs, including when they accessed external services. Information was shared with relevant professionals, which supported joined up care.

Relatives told us people experienced coordinated care and were supported through transitions into the service. They described information being shared with them and felt staff worked with other professionals to help ensure people’s needs were met consistently.

Processes were in place to support people moving into the home, including assessments and care planning, which helped ensure care could be provided safely. Care records were used to guide staff and support consistent delivery of care.

People were provided with information about their care, and a range of accessible formats were available, including large print, braille and different languages. However, there was limited evidence that these were consistently used to support people to understand decisions about their care and safety. While resources such as visual prompts and photographs were available, these were not always used to support conversations about important decisions. This meant people may not always have been fully supported to understand or be involved in decisions affecting them. For example, a mental capacity assessment had been carried out to assess a person’s understanding of the use of bed rails; however, although visual aids were available to support this discussion, these had not been used.

Communication plans were in place to help staff understand how best to communicate with people. However, these did not always clearly describe how information should be shared with people to support their understanding when making decisions.

Despite this, we observed positive interactions between staff and people, with staff speaking to people in a kind and respectful way and adapting their approach during day‑to‑day interactions. This supported people to express their views and be involved in their care.

People were listened to and involved in decisions about their care. There were opportunities for people and their relatives to share feedback, including through meetings and day to day conversations with staff. Staff described how they sought people’s views and used this to inform care and improve the service.

Relatives told us staff listened to them and involved them in discussions about people’s care. They described staff explaining things and communicating with them regularly, which helped ensure their views were considered.

Feedback was also gathered on specific aspects of the service, such as meals, which helped ensure people’s preferences were understood and acted on. This supported a responsive approach to meeting people’s needs and preferences.

People were supported to access care and services in a way that met their needs. Assessments were completed before people moved into the home to ensure their needs could be met, which supported appropriate access to care.

Relatives told us people were supported to access care and services that met their needs. They described staff gathering information before admission and adapting care to help ensure people could settle into the service and receive appropriate support.

Staff demonstrated an understanding of people’s needs and how to adapt their approach to reduce barriers. This was supported by training, which helped ensure staff had the knowledge to provide safe and equitable access to care.

People experienced care in a way that met their individual needs, with staff adapting their approach to ensure support was inclusive and responsive. Staff demonstrated an understanding of people’s backgrounds, preferences and health needs, which helped promote positive experiences.

Training supported staff to recognise and respond to differences in people’s needs, including how to provide care in a way that was respectful and inclusive. Staff described how they would adjust care and communication to ensure people felt supported and understood.

Staff demonstrated an awareness of discrimination and how to respond to it. While not all staff had encountered this in practice, those who had described raising concerns with management and felt these were addressed appropriately.

People’s outcomes were monitored and reviewed, and action was taken when changes in need were identified. This helped ensure people received consistent care that reflected their circumstances and supported positive outcomes.

People were supported to plan for the future where appropriate. Staff described how they involved people and their relatives in discussions about their care, including future wishes and preferences. This helped ensure care reflected what was important to people.

Processes were in place to support ongoing discussions and reviews, including involving people and their relatives in care planning. This supported a person-centred approach to planning for the future and helped ensure people’s wishes were understood. Some relatives described being included in conversations about care planning, including decisions about end-of-life care, which helped ensure people’s preferences were understood.

The provider recognised the need to strengthen this to improve how information was captured and ensure these conversations were consistently recorded, particularly if people’s health changed or they required end of life care. Opportunities to discuss future wishes had been incorporated into care reviews, and meetings were arranged when people and their relatives wanted them. This helped ensure people had opportunities to express their wishes and that these could be reflected in their care over time.