Swallowdale

“Swallowdale is a care home without nursing. There were 8 people using the service at the time of the assessment.”

“Who the service is for”

“Swallowdale is a specialist service for autistic people and people with a learning disability.Key findingsWe carried out this assessment between 21 September and 06 October 2026. We visited Swallowdale on 21and 29 September and conducted an out of hours visit on 04 October 2026. This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of good remained accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard. Instead, our findings focus on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.”

“We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted.”

“People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found that staff and management worked within the MCA. DoLS authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions they had choice, control and freedom over their lives. In line with changes to DoLS from June 2026, people's mental capacity to consent to restrictions was being reviewed to ensure the correct legal safeguards were in place. Where a DoLS was no longer required, records clearly reflected people's wishes and those of their representatives. Any restrictions for safety and wellbeing had been assessed as the least restrictive option and were in people's best interests.”

“People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Staff understood safeguarding responsibilities and worked closely with external professionals when concerns arose. Risks were managed in a way that promoted people's independence, including accessing employment, relationships, community activities and learning new skills. Relatives told us they were informed straight away of concerns and were involved in reviewing and managing risks. One relative told us, “[Staff] contact me often and I understand risk assessments. Staff seem to be good at it and explain risks to [my family member] and me.””

“There were enough staff to meet people's needs safely and consistently. The home was clean, comfortable and adapted to meet people's needs. A relative told us, “Staff are mindful of physical aspects of safety, such as electrical testing. When going out they do risk assessments of where they are going and always have good staff to client ratio. When I’ve had health and safety issues, these are dealt with efficiently and quickly.””

“Medicines were generally managed safely, with effective oversight and auditing processes, although a small number of recording issues were identified and addressed during the inspection.”

“People received support that reflected their individual needs and preferences. Care plans considered people's health needs, communication methods and sensory needs, enabling staff to provide personalised support. Staff worked well with healthcare professionals and received positive feedback from external agencies.”

“People received highly personalised support from staff who knew them well and understood what was important to them. Support was focused on helping…”