You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 4 February 2020

About the service

NCC Swift Response is a domiciliary care agency providing personal care to people aged 18 and over who live in the community and require physical or practical support with daily living tasks. The service provides a response to urgent or unplanned needs. This may be for one off intervention or could provide short term support until a resolution can be found to meet that person’s needs.

During this inspection, we looked at the people who used the service in the 24-hour period of our site visit. All required one off interventions with none requiring more that one visit. Not everyone who used the service in this period received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Since our last inspection the provider had improved the governance systems with further developments planned. However, they had failed to notify CQC of several safeguarding incidents that they had been required to do so by law. Furthermore, the registered manager was not fully aware of all the events they had a responsibility to report to CQC. This meant regulatory requirements were not fully met.

People benefitted from receiving a service delivered by dedicated, professional and skilled staff who were committed to providing the best service they could. They demonstrated knowledge and passion and were supportive of each other and the service. There was an open, accommodating culture that strived to improve the service people received. Staff received regular support, training and opportunities to attend meetings which aided their development, knowledge and confidence.

Staff had been safely recruited and there were enough to meet people’s needs in a person-centred manner. There were no time limits placed on how long staff could stay with people when providing them with support and this ensured people received an unhurried, dedicated service that met their urgent, unplanned and immediate needs. Staff assisted people with personal care, after a fall, medicines administration and meeting nutritional needs as required. This included when people were at the end of their lives.

Relevant information was taken at the point of referral and risks assessed as much as possible. However, staff were responsible for continuing to risk assess when making a visit and they demonstrated they were adept at doing so. Staff had received training in safeguarding people and were knowledgeable in this area. Any concerns had been referred to the local authority as required. Accidents and incidents were recorded and analysed for trends to help prevent reoccurrence. Staff had received training in medicines administration and although training in infection prevention and control had expired for most staff, our evidence showed good practice was adopted.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People who used the service told us staff were considerate, kind and patient and were complimentary about the service they provided. They told us they felt safe with staff and that they were appreciative of the service at a time when they needed help urgently. People told us staff maintained their dignity and made them feel comfortable, respected and listened to.

Although no one we spoke with had the need to raise any concerns, they knew how to should the need arise. The provider had a complaints policy in place and the registered manager put emphasis on using complaints as opportunities for learning and improving the service. Audits were in place to ensure the quality of the service and strong partnership working was in place to ensure people received continuity in their care.

The ser

Inspection areas



Updated 4 February 2020

The service was safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.



Updated 4 February 2020

The service was effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.



Updated 4 February 2020

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.



Updated 4 February 2020

The service was responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 4 February 2020

The service was not always well-led.

Details are in our well-led findings below.