Swallownest Nursing Home is situated approximately nine miles from Rotherham. It is a purpose built home providing care for up to 65 older people. The home has bedrooms on the first floor and ground level of the building. There is a passenger lift. There is parking and gardens to the rear of the building.On the day of the inspection 64 people were living in the home.

This inspection took place on 5 and 6 January 2017. The inspection was unannounced on the first day. When we visited the home in February 2015 we rated the home as Good.

The home had a registered manager. 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.

All of the people who used the service and most visiting relatives we spoke with gave positive feedback about the home, the staff, the food, the activities and the care provided.

People are supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

There was a homely feel and everywhere was clean. People were well cared for and there were warm interactions between people who used the service and staff. People’s views and opinions were sought and taken in to consideration and staff demonstrated a good knowledge of people.

There were sufficient staff, who were well supported through a system of induction, training, supervision, appraisal and professional development.

The recruitment systems were designed to make sure new staff were only employed if they were suitable to work at the service.

The staff were aware of their responsibility to protect people from harm or abuse. People who used the service and staff were confident to raise any concerns.

There was a comprehensive, formal quality assurance process in place. This meant that the service was monitored to make sure good care was provided and planned improvements and changes could be implemented in a timely manner.

We inspected Swallownest Nursing Home on 24 February 2015. The inspection was unannounced. When we visited the home in April 2013 we found people were not protected from the risk of infection because appropriate guidance had not been followed and accurate and appropriate records were not maintained. When we inspected the service in July 2013 to follow up, we found the service had addressed these issues. When we inspected in April and July 2013 there was a breach of regulations regarding the management of medication. When we inspected the service in October 2013 to follow up, we found the service had addressed these issues.

Swallownest Nursing Home is situated approximately nine miles from Rotherham. It is a purpose built home providing care for up to 65 older people. The home has bedrooms on the first floor and ground level of the building. There is parking and gardens to the rear of the building.

On the day of the inspection 64 people were living in the home.

The home had a registered manager. 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.

All of the people who used the service and family members we spoke with gave positive feedback about the home, the staff, the food, the activities and the level of care provided.

There was a homely feel and everywhere was clean. People were well cared for and there were warm interactions between people who used the service and staff. People’s views and opinions were sought and taken in to consideration and staff demonstrated a good knowledge of people. For instance, most had worked in the home for a long time and were readily able to tell us people’s likes and dislikes.

We did not identify any areas of major concern, although there were some minor areas for improvement that we highlighted regarding how some staff engaged with people at lunchtime.

There were sufficient staff, who were well supported through a system of induction, training, supervision, appraisal and professional development. One person who used the service said, “The staff are smashing.”

The recruitment systems were designed to make sure new staff were only employed if they were suitable to work at the service. The staff employed by the service were aware of their responsibility to protect people from harm or abuse. People who used the service and staff were confident to raise any concerns.

There was a comprehensive, formal quality assurance process in place. This meant that the service was monitored to make sure good care was provided and planned improvements and changes could be implemented in a timely manner.

We completed this inspection because our inspection of 23 July 2013, found that the service was not compliant with regulations 13 of the Health and Social Care Act. The provider wrote to us and told us that they would be compliant by 31 August 2013.

People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines. One person told us they were happy for staff to administer their medication. Another person said, “The staff explain to me why I need to take my medication. They (staff) are very good."

We spoke with three people who used the service. They told us the care received was good and staff were respectful and kind. One person told us that staff helped to maintain their independence. This was in relation to medication. The person said “Staff bring me my medication; they put them in different coloured boxes so that I know which ones I need to take.”

Staff received training in the control and prevention of infection and they were provided with equipment to prevent the risk of cross infection. Policies and procedures were in place to ensure the home was cleaned to a sufficient standard to control the risk of infection.

People were not protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider did not have appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.

People were protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment because their records had been reviewed and updated regularly.

People expressed their views and were involved in making decisions about their care and treatment.

People we spoke with told us that staff were kind and always treated them with respect. One person said “Staff help me to get dressed and I stay in my room and staff brings me my meals.” People were encouraged to maintain their independence. One person told us “I know the help I need and I am happy with the care and support I get from staff.”

Relatives we spoke with told us that they were happy with the care provided, although one relative told us they had raised a number of concerns which had been looked into by the manager.

Staff received training in the control and prevention of infection and they were provided with equipment to prevent the risk of cross infection. Policies and procedures were in place. However we found some areas of the home were not cleaned to a sufficient standard to control the risk of infection.

We found systems did not protect people who used the service against the risks associated with the unsafe use and management of medication.

The organisation had robust recruitment procedures and ensured staff received training to enable them to deliver care safely.

Complaints were investigated and responded to in a timely manner.

Some records did not reflect the care and treatment provided to people who used the service.

People who used the service told us that they were happy living at the home. One person said, “The staff are very good during the day and night. I am being looked after and they are meeting my needs.” Another person said, “The staff are there when I need them and on the whole it’s excellent.”

We spoke with visiting professionals who felt that staff referred people on to appropriate services as required. One professional said, “People’s needs are being met.”

We spoke with four relatives of people who used the service. Generally people were happy with the standard of care. One person said, “The standard of care is good, but they do seem to be extremely short staffed. It’s a good place and the activities are good.”

We spoke with people who used the service and they told us that they felt safe in the home. They also felt that staff were respectful. One person said, “Staff treat me with respect and maintain my privacy.”

We spoke with four members of staff who told us that they enjoyed their job and they felt supported by the manager. One member of staff said “I am supported by the manager and I enjoy working with the team.” Staff felt that there were enough staff on each shift to meet the needs of the people who used the service.

We spoke with a number of people who used this service about their experiences while living at Swallownest Nursing Home. People said “The care here is excellent, the staff are very caring.” One persons said “They treat us as an individual, not just as one of the crowd.” We observed people joining in activities; one person told us there is always something going on.