CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Swallowdale
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe, and there were enough staff to support people promptly. However, some risk assessments did not fully describe hazards and safety measures, and fire records did not clearly show what evacuation support some people needed.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff were trained, skilled and supported through supervision and appraisals. People's health, nutrition, choices and independence were supported, although records did not always show who had been involved in decision-making.
- Caring?
- Good
- People said staff were kind and respectful. Staff understood people's communication, supported emotional wellbeing and helped people maintain relationships and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Staff knew people's preferences and involved them in care planning. Information was provided in formats people could understand, and people were supported with activities, relationships, education and work.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Managers and staff promoted person-centred care and people and relatives were asked for their views. The provider used audits, checks and action plans to monitor quality and address shortfalls.
What inspectors found, August 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, with some records and risk assessments needing improvement.
This was a planned inspection on 19 June 2019. Two inspectors spoke with people living at the home, managers and support staff. They observed care and checked care records, staff records, training, maintenance and quality checks.
The home supported six people and could support up to eight people with learning disabilities or autism. Inspectors found that people were safe, treated kindly and supported to make choices, build independence and keep relationships with family and friends.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was the same overall rating as the previous inspection, published in October 2016. Inspectors did find that some risk and decision-making records needed to be clearer.
Kind and respectful care
People spoke positively about the care and said staff were kind. Staff listened to people and respected their choices, dignity and privacy.
“People were positive about their care and support. They told us they liked the staff and said they were kind and caring.” from the report
Choice and independence
The home supported people to make choices, develop skills and become more independent. Staff used positive risk management rather than restricting people unnecessarily.
“The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion.” from the report
Good staff support
Inspectors found staff were competent and well trained. Supervision and appraisals supported learning and development.
“Staff were competent, knowledgeable and skilled; they carried out their roles effectively.” from the report
Good links and involvement
People were supported to keep relationships, take part in activities and access community opportunities. Their views and those of relatives were gathered and used to improve the service.
“People and their relatives completed surveys and met frequently with staff to discuss the service they received.” from the report
Risk assessments were incomplete
needs fixingSome risk assessments did not fully identify hazards or the measures needed to keep people safe. The report says a specialist team was due to help review them.
“Risk assessments however did not always fully identify the hazards and the control measures required to keep people safe.” from the report
Evacuation records needed more detail
needs fixingFire records did not clearly show what extra help some people would need to leave the building in an emergency. The deputy manager agreed to review these arrangements.
“Fire records were not sufficiently detailed to indicate what extra support people might need to evacuate the building.” from the report
Decision-making records were not always clear
needs fixingRecords did not always show who had been involved when decisions were made about people's care. The manager said staff understanding of the Mental Capacity Act needed to improve.
“Records, however, did not always show who had been involved in decision-making.” from the report
The home was larger than current guidance
minorThe home was bigger than most domestic-style properties and larger than current best practice guidance for this type of service. Inspectors said the building design and surrounding homes reduced the negative impact.
“This is larger than current best practice guidance.” from the report
- 01Have all risk assessments been reviewed so they clearly identify hazards and the controls needed to keep people safe?
- 02Do every person's emergency evacuation records now explain what support or prompting they need?
- 03How are staff trained and checked to make sure Mental Capacity Act decisions are properly recorded?
- 04How will the home support my relative to develop independence and make their own choices?
- 05How will my relative and our family be involved in reviewing care plans and raising concerns?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and the care provided; all five ratings remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 August 2019 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, October 2016
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care across all five areas they assessed.
This was an announced inspection on 20 September 2016. The inspector spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and managers. They observed care and reviewed care records, staff files, rotas, medicines arrangements and quality checks.
Eight people lived in the home, which could support up to eight people with learning disabilities. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines arrangements, suitable staff checks and support that protected people's rights and wellbeing.
People were treated with kindness and respect. They helped plan their care, meals, activities and holidays. The home had systems for complaints, feedback and checking the quality of care.
The overall rating was Good. Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Good. The report does not describe any breaches or enforcement action.
Personalised support
People were involved in planning their care and activities. Their support plans were reviewed to reflect changing wishes and needs.
“People and relatives we spoke with told us they felt staff were always available to discuss their social and care needs and were fully involved in creating their care plans.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff built positive relationships and respected privacy, personal space and dignity. People could personalise their rooms and make choices about their lives.
“Throughout our inspection visit we saw people's need for privacy and personal space was always respected by staff.” from the report
Safety and medicines
Risk plans were reviewed, staff knew how to report safeguarding concerns and there were enough staff. Medicines were securely stored and administered according to written guidance.
“There were also reliable arrangements for ordering, storing, administering and disposing of the medicines people needed to take to keep them well.” from the report
Activities and community life
People chose from regular activities and were supported to continue hobbies, take holidays and stay connected with relatives and the local community.
“People told us they enjoyed a range of activities and were actively supported by staff to follow their interests and develop new ones.” from the report
Open management
The manager and provider sought feedback from people, relatives and staff. Regular audits checked areas such as medicines, finances and the safety of the home.
“The provider and registered manager completed a range of quality checks which ensured that people consistently received all of the care they needed.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are my relative's current risks assessed and reviewed, and what should staff do in an emergency?
- 02How will my relative be involved in reviewing their care plan, meals, activities and holidays?
- 03What training and supervision do staff receive for my relative's particular health and support needs?
- 04How are medicines ordered, stored, administered and recorded, and how are changes communicated to relatives?
- 05How can my relative or our family raise a concern, and how will the home respond?
This was an announced inspection of the overall service, including all five CQC questions, with observations, discussions and checks of care, staffing and quality records. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 October 2016 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Swallowdale
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- August 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 May 2011.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
9 live-in carers within about an hour of Lincolnshire
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
8 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Martin was more than a carer, he managed the home and became my uncle's best friend, enriching his life during his last few years.”
“Magda was always positive and proactive about trying new things to keep dad busy. She also introduced new ideas for keeping dad healthy.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.