Swifthand Care Services Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

The service was well-led. People were treated with respect and their dignity and equality characteristics were protected by staff and managers. There was a positive culture led by caring and compassionate managers. There were processes in place to monitor the service and ensure good quality person-centred care was delivered to people. Staff were aware of their responsibilities and their performance was assessed to ensure the service was maintained. Managers learned lessons when things wrong in the service such as following complaints and incidents. This helped with continuous improvement. The service scored 71 out of 100 in this area.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Shared direction and culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

Feedback from staff and leaders indicated a service that was compassionate and inclusive. They were respectful of people's needs, backgrounds and cultures. They had the necessary skills, knowledge and experience. The registered manager told us they were open and honest with people and listened to their feedback. A staff member said, "I respect people's dignity and make sure they are treated equally. I would challenge discrimination and would not discriminate against people myself, because of their race, religion or sexuality."

There were processes for the service to maintain a positive culture of equal opportunities in accordance with the Equality Act 2010. The registered manager also understood their responsibilities under the Duty of Candour to be open, honest and to do so with integrity. Staff and managers followed the provider's ethos, values and standards to ensure quality care was provided to people. People told us the service was generally well managed. A relative said, "The individual carers are very pleasant and the main office is easy to contact and respond quickly."

We did not look at Freedom to speak up during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

Managers told us how they monitored the quality of the service through spot checks on staff performance and punctuality. Audits were carried out on care records and medicine records to check they were being completed appropriately. Staff training was assessed and staff competency was checked to ensure they understood the requirements of their role. People's feedback on the service was sought although some people told us they were not always contacted for their feedback. However, records confirmed that the management contacted people to complete satisfaction surveys.

Quality assurance processes helped managers understand their responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. Systems were used to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. The provider acted on risk, performance and outcomes, and worked with external partners to help support people's health and wellbeing.

We did not look at Partnerships and communities during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not see much evidence of how the provider developed creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. However, it was clear that there was collaboration between managers and staff on what improvements were needed in the service. There were quality assurance processes in place to help the service maintain standards and continuously improve the service.

Managers told us they learned lessons when things went wrong and they identified where improvements were required. Staff told us they attended meetings with other colleagues and managers to discuss areas that required improvement or where staff had not met the standards expected and what they needed to do better. For example, with completing records or ensuring they logged in to their calls correctly. Staff felt supported and encouraged to perform well. A staff member said, "I enjoy working for the company that is why I have stayed for a long time. The managers are very good." Another staff member said, "We have staff meetings to discuss concerns, share information and talk about improvements we need to make. [Registered manager] is very supportive."