Swarthdale Nursing Home

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question inadequate. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. Some aspects of the service were not safe. Most aspects of medicines management and administration had improved since the last inspection. However, systems used to manage medicines administration were not always safe or effective. The electronic medicines administration recording system (eMARS) was not being used properly. This was because some staff were not fully competent in its use. For example, the systems reporting function was not fully utilised to identify any errors. The provider was in breach of the legal regulation 12 safe care and treatment. The provider’s recruitment process was not robust. The required checks of suitability to work with vulnerable people were not always completed. The provider was in breach of the legal regulation 19 fit and proper persons employed.

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. At our last assessment we rated this key question as requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people felt well-supported, cared for and treated with dignity and respect. The culture in the home was seen to be very caring.

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs. At the last assessment we rated this key question as requires improvement at this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery. Improvements made since the last inspection included care being more personalised and people could access a variety of meaningful sociable activities.

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture. At the last inspection this key question was rated inadequate. At this assessment the rating has been changed to requires improvement. This meant there were still some shortfalls in leadership and oversight of the quality and safety of the service.