CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Sweyne Court Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe and their belongings and finances were protected. Inspectors found individual risk assessments, safe medicines processes, suitable recruitment checks and enough staff to meet people's needs.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff were trained to support people's needs, including dementia and specialist diets. People had access to healthcare professionals and were supported to eat, drink and maintain their health.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind, respectful and supportive. People and relatives were involved in care decisions, and inspectors saw people being supported with privacy, dignity and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was based on people's preferences, communication needs and interests. People could raise concerns, maintain relationships and receive support with religious needs and end of life care.
- Well-led?
- Good
- People, relatives and staff found the registered manager approachable. Inspectors found quality checks, feedback systems and partnership working that supported improvements.
What inspectors found, April 2020
Sweyne Court Care Home was rated Good in all areas; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care with strong management.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 16 March 2020. One inspector spoke with people living there, a relative and staff. They observed care and reviewed care plans, medicines records, recruitment files, training information and quality checks.
The home was caring for 40 people, although it can accommodate up to 43. Inspectors found people felt safe, staff knew their needs well, medicines were managed safely and there were enough staff. People were supported with food, healthcare, activities, communication and end of life care.
People and relatives were involved in care planning and were able to raise concerns. Inspectors found the registered manager approachable and saw systems for checking quality and making improvements. The overall rating was Good, and all five areas were rated Good.
People felt safe
People said they felt secure, and the home had systems to protect them from abuse and to keep their belongings and finances safe.
“People felt safe living in the service and had their belongings and finances protected.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff were described as kind and caring. Inspectors saw people being treated with dignity and supported to remain as independent as possible.
“Staff were kind and caring when they supported people and gave emotional support when needed.” from the report
Personalised support
People and relatives helped plan care. Staff knew people's preferences and adapted communication and activities to individual needs.
“People and their relatives were involved in making decisions about their care and care was planned based on people's preferences.” from the report
Active quality improvement
The home used audits, feedback and incident reviews to identify improvements. Inspectors noted that changes to an upstairs dining area were followed by fewer falls there.
“The registered manager had a quality monitoring system in place to ensure that the quality and safety of the service was regularly reviewed, and improvements were made where needed.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you review staffing levels when a person's needs change or they return from hospital?
- 02How are people's end of life wishes recorded and kept up to date, and how are families involved?
- 03What infection control and visiting arrangements are currently in place?
- 04How do residents and relatives give feedback now, and how do you show that concerns have been acted on?
- 05What changes have been made since the inspection to maintain the reduction in falls in the upstairs lounge diner?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and care provided; the previous overall rating was Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 April 2020 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, September 2017
Sweyne Court Care Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements completed since 2016.
This was an unannounced inspection on 30 August and 7 September 2017. One inspector and an expert by experience spoke with people, relatives, managers and staff. They also reviewed care files, staff records, medicines, training, complaints and audits.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas. Inspectors found that risks were assessed, staffing was sufficient, medicines were managed safely and staff were trained. People were treated with kindness and respect, and their care plans reflected their needs and preferences.
The report says the home had acted on problems found at the previous inspection in June 2016. Improvements had been made to risk assessments, mental capacity decisions and quality checks.
Safe staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's assessed needs. Recruitment checks, training and supervision were also in place.
“There were sufficient staff to meet people's assessed needs.” from the report
Medicines
Medicines were ordered, stored, given and checked through clear systems. Staff administering medicines had their competence checked regularly.
“This showed that people received their medication safely and as prescribed.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People said staff were kind, caring and respectful. Inspectors saw staff supporting privacy, dignity, independence and personal choices.
“Throughout our visits we saw many examples of kind, caring, respectful care.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's preferences, personal history and care needs. Staff supported hobbies, interests, mobility and individual routines.
“The care plans identified people's preferences and care needs.” from the report
Improved management
The home had improved its quality checks since the previous inspection. Audits identified areas for improvement and action plans were used.
“The quality assurance checks now identified areas for improvement and action plans had been put in place where necessary.” from the report
Relatives' meetings
minorA relative said daytime meetings were difficult to attend because people worked. The next meeting was moved to the evening to try to improve attendance.
“It is difficult to get to meetings that are usually held in the day as we all work.” from the report
- 01How are people's risk assessments and management plans reviewed when their needs change?
- 02How often are staff's medicines administration skills checked now?
- 03How are relatives involved in care planning and meetings if they cannot attend during the day?
- 04How are people's activities, hobbies and cultural or religious needs recorded and reviewed?
- 05What recent improvements have been identified through audits, complaints or surveys?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five areas, with observations, discussions and reviews of samples of care, staff and service records. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 September 2017 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 Sweyne Court Care Home
4 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2016Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 December 2010.
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
35 live-in carers within about an hour of Essex
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 £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 25 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums life.”
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.