Swanholme Court

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

Well-led – 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. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

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.

Leaders promoted a positive and inclusive culture within the service. Staff described the home as a friendly and supportive place to work, with a shared aim of providing good quality care. Many staff felt part of a team and spoke positively about the values of the service, which helped create a caring environment for people.

Staff understood the importance of treating people with respect and described how this was reflected in their day to day practice. There was a focus on people being treated as part of a family, which was reflected in staff interactions and the overall atmosphere of the home.

Leaders were visible, approachable and demonstrated a commitment to providing compassionate and inclusive care. Staff described leaders as supportive and said they could seek guidance when needed, which helped create a working environment where staff felt able to carry out their roles and support people effectively.

At the time of inspection there was no registered manager in post, however arrangements were in place to provide management oversight during this period. Some staff described this period of change as challenging, which had impacted morale for a small number of staff, although this was largely linked to the period of transition and uncertainty.

A new manager had started at the time of inspection and had plans to establish their role and provide clear direction for the service.

Staff told us they were able to raise concerns and understood how to do so. They described reporting issues to senior staff and were aware of escalation routes, including to more senior leaders where needed. This supported a culture where concerns could be identified and shared.

Some staff gave examples of raising concerns which they felt were responded to appropriately. However, others described occasions where they were less confident that concerns would lead to action. Confidence in speaking up was variable and influenced by previous experiences, although leaders encouraged openness and had processes in place to support this.

Staff surveys and meetings provided further opportunities for staff to share their views. Feedback was used through a, ‘You said, we did’ approach, which demonstrated that leaders listened and took action in response to concerns. This supported a culture of engagement and continuous improvement.

Staff were supported in a way that promoted equality, diversity and inclusion. They described working within a diverse team and understood the importance of treating colleagues and people using the service with respect. Training was available to support staff understanding of equality, diversity and inclusion, including recognising discrimination and how to respond to concerns.

Staff felt able to raise concerns about their own or others’ treatment and were aware of processes to report issues such as bullying or discrimination.

Flexible working arrangements for staff had been considered and supported where possible, which helped staff balance their work and personal responsibilities. This demonstrated a willingness to adapt to staff needs and promote fair and equitable treatment.

Systems were in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service, including audits and oversight processes. Staff described how checks were completed across different areas of the service, and there were processes to review care and identify areas for improvement.

Monitoring systems identified issues and were supporting improvements. For example, actions had been planned to strengthen care plan reviews and enhance the quality of recording.

However, some audits had not always identified issues found during the inspection, including gaps in medicines documentation and recording and a lack of consistent oversight of incidents. This meant governance systems were not always fully effective in identifying and addressing risks, or in ensuring learning was consistently recognised and used to improve practice.

Leadership arrangements had been in place to maintain oversight during a period without a registered manager, which meant the service continued to operate with management support and oversight during this transition.

There were effective partnerships in place with external professionals and services to support people’s care. Staff described how they worked with healthcare professionals such as GPs and other services when needed, which helped ensure people received coordinated and responsive care.

Partnership working supported people to maintain their health and wellbeing, with appropriate referrals made when concerns were identified. Staff understood when to seek additional support and how to involve other services to meet people’s needs.

The home supported people to remain part of the community. There were opportunities for people to access the local area and take part in activities outside the home, which helped maintain social connections and promote wellbeing. These arrangements supported continuity of care and helped ensure people remained connected to services and their wider community.

There was a focus on learning and improvement within the home. Leaders were reflective, open to feedback during the inspection and demonstrated a willingness to improve, identifying areas for development such as communication and care planning, with plans in place to address these.

Staff were involved through feedback, meetings and ongoing discussions, which supported opportunities to share views and contribute to improvement. These arrangements supported the sustainability of the service and the provider’s ability to continue improving.

While some changes were still in the early stages and not yet fully embedded into practice, there was a clear direction and intention to strengthen how improvements were implemented moving forward.