Skip to content
CQC ExplainedEvery inspection report, in plain English

CQC report explained · a nursing home, run by We Care Group

Swansea Terrace

108-114 Watery Lane, Ashton On Ribble, Preston, PR2 1AT

Requires improvementpublished 6 March 2024, 2 years ago

Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the service was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.

The five questions inspectors ask
Safe?
Requires improvement
Some people did not receive medicines as prescribed, and some medicines were not in stock. Risks linked to repositioning, equipment and missed care alerts were not always managed safely.
Effective?
Requires improvement
People were at risk of dehydration because fluid targets were not met. Some care records lacked detail, dietary information was inconsistent, and health records were not always updated.
Caring?
Good
This question was not inspected during this focused inspection, so no new rating was given.
Responsive?
Good
This question was not inspected during this focused inspection, so no new rating was given.
Well-led?
Requires improvement
Quality checks did not reliably identify missed care, missed fluid targets or incomplete risk records. People's views and relatives' feedback had not been sought consistently.
The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, March 2024

Swansea Terrace was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found risks with medicines, hydration, staffing and management oversight.

This was an unannounced focused inspection on 19 and 21 July 2023. Inspectors reviewed 14 care records and medicine records, spoke with people, relatives, staff and managers, and observed care and lunch.

The home was not always safe. Some people missed repositioning support or did not receive enough to drink. Medicines were not always available or managed safely, and diabetes care records were not reliable.

The home was also not always effective or well-led. Fluid targets were missed, some dietary choices were not properly supported, and care records and management checks were incomplete. The overall rating changed from Good to Requires Improvement.

What inspectors praised
  • Safe recruitment

    The provider carried out the required checks before employing staff.

    The provider had robust recruitment procedures in place which helped ensure staff employed were suitable to work with people.from the report
  • Clean environment

    Inspectors found the home clean and tidy. Relatives also spoke positively about the cleanliness of bedrooms.

    The home was clean and tidy. Relatives told us they found the home was always well kept.from the report
  • Building safety

    Checks covering fire, gas, electrical safety and legionella were up to date, and identified work had been followed up promptly.

    Maintenance of the home, safety checks and procedures in relation to legionella, fire safety, electrical safety and gas safety were up to date.from the report
  • Openness to improvement

    The provider and interim manager cooperated with outside partners and began responding to the inspection findings.

    The provider and interim manager were open and cooperative with partners to learn and respond to concerns.from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Medicines and diabetes care

    serious

    Some medicines were unavailable, records did not accurately show stocks, and information for staff about some medicines was missing. Diabetes care was inconsistent and one insulin regime was incorrect.

    Medicines were not managed safely. This placed people at risk of harm. This was a breach of regulation 12(1) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.from the report
  • Risks and missed care

    serious

    Repositioning support was not always provided or recorded accurately. Missed care alerts had built up without being acted on, and some equipment risk assessments lacked enough detail.

    Overdue alerts had built up and had not been responded to. We were not assured the missed activities had been responded to or picked up by managers.from the report
  • Food and drink

    serious

    People needing support to drink did not meet their recorded fluid targets. The menu did not clearly provide options for specific dietary needs, including vegetarian and vegan choices.

    People had not been supported to maintain adequate nutrition and hydration. This meant they were at risk of harm. This was a breach of Regulation 14from the report
  • Staffing pressure

    needs fixing

    There were mixed views about staffing, and some staff said they did not have enough time to meet all people's needs. The home was using many agency staff, including nurses.

    There were a high number of agency staff working in the home, including nurses. The provider was recruiting to permanent positions in the home and this was ongoing.from the report
  • Management oversight

    serious

    Audits did not identify important problems with care, records and risks. Management changes and inconsistent feedback arrangements affected the consistency of care and communication.

    Oversight of the quality of care provided and care records had not been maintained. This placed people at risk of harm and was a breach of Regulation 17from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What has changed to ensure every person receives their medicines, including diabetes treatment and medicines prescribed when needed?
  2. 02How do you now check that people meet their individual fluid targets each day?
  3. 03How are repositioning and other missed care alerts reviewed and acted on promptly?
  4. 04How many permanent nurses and care staff are currently in place, and how do you ensure agency staff know each person's needs?
  5. 05What audits and feedback arrangements are now in place to identify problems and involve relatives?

This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led only; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were used in calculating the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 March 2024 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Swansea Terrace

6 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Requires improvement.

  1. March 2024Requires improvementcurrent rating
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read what inspectors found at Swansea Terrace

  2. December 2020Inspected but not rated
    Safe: Inspected but not rated

    We are reading this report · the original is on cqc.org.uk

  3. May 2019Goodup from Requires improvement
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. June 2018Requires improvementup from Inadequate
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. October 2017Inadequatedown from Requires improvement
    Safe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. August 2016Requires improvementup from Inadequate
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  7. March 2016Inadequate
    Safe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: InadequateResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  8. February 2014

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  9. May 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  10. August 2012

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 August 2012.

Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission. A service can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections, not every contact the CQC has had with the service.

Another option

Or stay at home with a private carer

Many people who look at care homes end up staying at home with a carer who comes in for a few hours a day, or lives in. PrimeCarers introduces you to self-employed carers you choose yourself: interviewed, ID and DBS checked, from about £20 an hour or £1,120 a week live-in.

Same provider

Other services run by Flightcare Limited

4 other services on the CQC register. A pattern across a group tells you more than one report.

Beechcroft

Prenton, CH43
Requires improvement
NursingDementia
Rated 2 years agocare home

Orchard Nursing

Liverpool, L36
Good
NursingDementia
Rated 6 months agocare home
Nearby

Other care homes near Preston

The Knowle Care Home

Preston, PR2 · 0.3 km
Requires improvement
ResidentialDementia
Rated 2 years agoReport explained

Wellington Road

Preston, PR2 · 0.3 km
Not yet rated
Residential
Not yet ratedcare home

Florida House

Preston, PR2 · 0.4 km
Good
Residential
Rated 4 years agocare home

Abraham House

Preston, PR2 · 0.8 km
Good
ResidentialDementia
Rated 3 years agocare home