CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Swerford House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Inspectors found comprehensive risk assessments, enough staff, safe recruitment and clear medicine records.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had relevant training and support. People were helped with healthy food choices, healthcare, communication, independence and decision-making.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with compassion, dignity and respect. People were involved in choices about their care, activities and who supported them.
- Responsive?
- Outstanding
- Support plans were highly individual and adapted to people's communication and behaviour needs. People were supported to achieve new goals, develop skills, maintain relationships and take part in community activities.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The service had a positive, person-centred culture. Managers used audits, feedback and incident reviews to improve care, and staff felt involved in making improvements.
What inspectors found, July 2019
Rated Good overall, with Outstanding responsive care; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred support.
The inspection visit took place on 12 June 2019. One inspector spoke with people, staff and relatives, observed care, and checked care, medicine, staff and management records.
The home supported seven people with learning disabilities. Some people had autism and everyone needed support with behaviour that could challenge. Inspectors found people were safe, treated kindly and supported by staff who understood their needs.
The strongest area was responsive care, rated Outstanding. People were helped to communicate, become more independent, take part in activities, build relationships and achieve goals such as holidays and new life skills.
The overall rating was Good. Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led were also rated Good. Responsive improved from Good at the previous inspection, published in December 2016.
Communication
Staff used picture cards, social stories, signs and technology to help people express themselves and understand what was happening.
“People had been supported to develop their communication skills.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make choices, learn practical skills and take positive risks, including cooking and activities that had previously seemed too risky.
“People were supported to live meaningful lives, reaching and exceeding goals they chose for themselves and were previously not accessible due to high levels of behaviour that challenged.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People took part in activities they chose, visited local places, joined clubs and groups, and kept in touch with family.
“People were supported to take part in meaningful activities of their choice.” from the report
Medicines
Medicine records were complete and staff supported some people to reduce their medicines safely.
“Medicine administration records were clear and had been fully completed by staff.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you adapt communication and support plans to match my relative's way of communicating?
- 02What positive behaviour support would be used if my relative became distressed or showed behaviour that could challenge?
- 03How do you review and reduce medicines, including medicines given only when needed?
- 04How do you make sure people have consistent staff and enough staff to take part in activities?
- 05What progress has been made since the 2019 inspection, especially in communication, independence and reducing physical interventions?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including both the accommodation and the personal care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 July 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, December 2016
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with guidance needed for applying some creams.
The inspection was announced and took place on 10 November 2016. Inspectors spoke with all five people, staff, managers, relatives and a healthcare professional. They observed care and reviewed care plans, risk assessments, medicines records, staff files, training records, rotas, complaints and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines arrangements, suitable training and clear guidance for supporting people with learning disabilities, autism and behaviours that challenged.
People were supported to make choices and become more independent. Inspectors saw people taking part in activities, going into the community, attending concerts and going on holiday. Staff knew people's routines, communication methods and personal preferences, and responded quickly when people became anxious.
There was one area for improvement. Staff recorded when skin creams were given, but there were no body maps showing where the creams should be applied. The previous inspection in October 2013 had found no concerns.
Safe staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to keep people safe and meet their needs. Staffing was flexible so people could take part in activities with the support they needed.
“There was enough staff on shift to keep people safe and meet their needs.” from the report
Kind relationships
Staff knew people well and responded calmly when they became anxious or distressed. People were supported with dignity and respect.
“People were relaxed in the company of staff and their relatives told us that staff were kind and caring.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans described people's routines, preferences, communication and possible triggers. Staff used this information to provide consistent support.
“People received the care and support they needed, in the way they wanted.” from the report
Independence and activities
People were helped to do new things and take part in community life. Inspectors saw evidence of achievements such as concerts, football and a first holiday.
“People had been supported to broaden their horizons and were doing things that they had never done before.” from the report
Open management
Staff and relatives described managers as approachable and supportive. Regular audits, meetings and feedback were used to identify and address improvements.
“There was a culture of openness and honesty; staff spoke with each other and with people in a respectful and kind way.” from the report
Cream application guidance
needs fixingSome people used creams for healthy skin. Staff recorded when creams were given, but there was no body map showing where each cream should be applied.
“Although staff signed to say when this was administered there was no guidance in place to show staff where to administer the cream, this was an area for improvement.” from the report
- 01Have body maps now been introduced for every person who uses prescribed creams, and how are staff checked on this?
- 02How do you make sure there are enough familiar staff when someone needs one-to-one or two-to-one support?
- 03How are medicines used for anxiety or behaviours that challenge reviewed, and how do you make sure they are only used when needed?
- 04How will you support my relative's communication, routines and known triggers if they become anxious or distressed?
- 05How do people and their families take part in reviewing care plans and deciding on activities?
This was an announced comprehensive inspection covering all five questions and the overall quality of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 December 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 Swerford House
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- December 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 January 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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Kent
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.
Most charge £980 to £1,260 a week. 33 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
“Irene was a very kind and empathetic carer who knew just the right words to say to put a smile on my face.”
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.