You are here

Archived: Swiss Cottage Care Home

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 2, 6 May 2014
Date of Publication: 5 June 2014
Inspection Report published 05 June 2014 PDF


Inspection carried out on 2, 6 May 2014

During a routine inspection

When we visited Swiss Cottage in November 2013 we found that they were not meeting six of the regulations we reviewed. We checked to make sure they had made the required improvements. We found that they had made improvements however; the regulation to supporting workers had not been fully met. This was because the supervision and appraisal framework had not been fully embedded and work was still in progress. The impact to people using the service had therefore been reduced from a moderate to a minor.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection discussions with people using the service, the staff supporting them and looking at records.

If you wish to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

We found that the format of the care plans had not been changed but all the care plans had been reviewed to reflect people�s individual needs. Daily report sheets and personal care checklist sheets had also been introduced to enable staff to report on people�s well-being. This meant that staff were able to evidence all aspects of personal care they provided to people on a daily basis.

Staff spoken with were aware of the home�s safeguarding and whistleblowing policies. The policies were displayed in accessible areas of the home to ensure that people who used the service, staff and visitors would be able to access the information if they needed to report any potential incident of abuse.

We found that the home was kept clean and there was good odour control. Staff had access to personal protective equipment such as disposable gloves and aprons.

The home had introduced robust monitoring systems to protect people against the risk associated with unsafe use and management of medicines. As a result of these stringent monitoring checks the home had been able to identify errors and addressed them with the staff members involved.

We found significant improvements had been made to employ permanent staff. This had resulted in the reduction of agency staff working in the home.

Care plan records and other records were stored securely and could be located promptly when required. It was evident that records were stored securely to ensure that confidentiality was not breached.

Is the service effective?

We found that people were consulted about their care and treatment and were provided with choices. Where people did not have the capacity to consent best interest meetings were held.

The home had made improvement to ensure that staff had been provided with appropriate training to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard to people who use the service. We were not able to assess fully the quality of the home�s supervision and appraisal framework. This was because it had not yet been fully embedded and was still work in progress. For example, staff had not yet been appraised and only ten staff had received bi-monthly one to one supervision. We felt that the risk of staff not being supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard had been reduced to a minor impact.

Is the service caring?

We found that staff spoke with people in a kind and compassionate manner. People looked comfortable in staff company. Staff were able to describe the positive outcomes that people had achieved with their support and support from other health care professionals.

Is the service responsive?

We found where complaints had been made these were responded to by the manager and resolved where possible to people�s satisfaction.

Is the service well led?

We found that people and their relatives had been asked for their views about the care provision and these had been addressed. We saw evidence that regular staff meetings were held. Monthly and daily audits relating to people�s care and treatment were undertaken to ensure that people received appropriate and safe care and treatment.

Staff spoken with said that the manager was supportive and approachable. It was evident that staff felt well-led and informed about people�s care and treatment.