We carried out a review of the data available to us about Swan Care and Support South on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Swan Care and Support South, you can give feedback on this service.
Vivo Support Ltd is a domiciliary care agency, trading as Swan Care and Support – South. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the south of Essex. At the time of the inspection there were 25 people receiving personal care from the service.
People’s experience of using this service:
People and families were very positive about the support they received. A family member told us, “This is an excellent service. My family member has an improved quality of life.”
The service benefitted from being part of a larger organisation, with access to a wide range of resources. Senior staff and care staff had a shared ethos and were focused on the needs of the people they supported. The service was outward looking and developed positive relationships with key organisations.
The service was well managed. The provider had invested in improvements, such as a new electronic monitoring system. This helped the registered manager check people received the support outlined in their care plans. There was a range of other checks on the quality of the service and measures to gather feedback from people, families and staff. The registered manager and provider used any information they gained to learn from mistakes and make the service better.
The provider had systems in place to keep people safe. Care plans gave staff detailed guidance on how to reduce risk and meet people’s needs safely, whilst upholding their human rights. There were enough safely recruited staff who were efficiently deployed. The provider had invested in changes to address staff morale. Staff told us they were well supported, and retention had improved. The provider was continually improving the administration of medicine.
Office and care staff communicated well to ensure support was consistent and effective. Staff were skilled at meeting people’s needs. They monitored people’s wellbeing and supported them to get in touch with professionals as required. Staff respectfully promoted people right to make decisions.
Staff provided compassionate care which was led by the people they supported. The registered manager promoted an understanding of inclusion and diverse needs.
The registered manager ensured support adapted flexibly to people’s needs. Changes in care planning and spot checks meant the service was becoming more person centred. Senior staff positively encouraged people to speak out about complaints and concerns as a way of improving the service. The service had invested in promoting dignified and skilled end of life care.
Rating at last inspection: Good (Last report published 22 June 2016)
Why we inspected:
This was a planned inspection to check that this service remained Good
Follow up: We will continue to monitor this service to ensure people receive care which meets their needs. We plan our inspections based on existing ratings and on any new information which we receive.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Vivo Support Limited is a small domiciliary care service that provides personal care to people living in their own homes. They predominantly provide a service for older adults, some of whom may be living with dementia or may have a physical disability. The service does not provide nursing care. At the time of our inspection there were approximately 30 people using the service.
A registered manager was in post at the service. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
Staff were committed to supporting people to remain safe in their homes. There were sufficient numbers of skilled staff to meet people’s needs. People were supported to take their prescribed medicines safely and the manager had reviewed and improved the systems to monitor the administration of medicines. The provider had a robust recruitment process in place to protect people from the risk of avoidable harm.
Staff felt well supported and managers were pro-active about developing the skills of their team. Staff sought consent from people before providing care and understood their rights to make choices about their service.
People were supported to have enough to eat and drink. Staff monitored people’s health needs and were committed to ensuring people had good access health care professionals when needed.
Staff had enough time to get to know people and spoke about them with affection. People were spoken to and treated with dignity and respect by staff.
People received support that was personalised and tailored to their needs. They were
aware of how to make a complaint and there were a number of opportunities available for people to give their feedback about the service.
Staff were motivated in their role and valued the focus on the people who used the service. The manager was visible and actively involved in supporting staff and people. The provider had effective systems in place to check the quality of the service.
We found before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes.
The provider has taken steps to provide an environment that is suitably designed and adequately maintained therefore people who use the service, staff and visitors were protected against the risks of unsafe or unsuitable premises.
We found the service had a number of systems to help monitor the quality of the service they provided and to ensure they followed their own policies and procedures. We also found there was an effective complaints system available.
The majority of people who used the service felt that their care needs were being met in the way that they would wish but some people told us that things were not always as they should be but these were not major issues to them.
Staff who worked for the agency were suitably trained and had a good induction when they started work. However, ongoing supervison was inconsistent and needed attention from the management team.
The provider had quality assurance systems in place that were developing in line with the steady growth of the business and they were working to formalise these in order to give them more accurate feedback.
People did not raise any concerns about the care they received from staff and reported that they had found them reliable. They added that they felt the staff had the skills and knowledge to provide the care they needed.
People knew who to speak to if they were unhappy with the service.