You are here

We are carrying out checks at Sedlescombe Park using our new way of inspecting services. We will publish a report when our check is complete.

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 19 February 2016

We inspected this service on 19 January 2016. The inspection was unannounced.

There was a registered manager in post. 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.

The service provides accommodation and personal care for up to 24 older people who are living with dementia. Eighteen people were living at the home on the day of our inspection.

There were policies and procedures to minimise risks to people’s safety. Staff understood their responsibilities to protect people from harm and were encouraged and supported to raise any concerns. The registered manager assessed risks to people’s health and welfare and wrote care plans that minimised the identified risks.

There were enough staff on duty to meet people’s health and social needs. The registered manager checked staff’s suitability to deliver care and support during the recruitment process. The premises were regularly checked to ensure risks to people’s safety were minimised. People’s medicines were managed, stored and administered safely.

Staff understood people’s needs and abilities because they read the care plans and shadowed experienced staff until they knew people well. Staff received training and support that ensured people’s needs were met effectively. Staff were encouraged to reflect on their practice and to develop their skills and knowledge, which improved people’s experience of care.

The registered manager understood their responsibility to comply with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). No one was subject to a DoLS at the time of our inspection, but the registered manager had sought advice from the local authority head of DoLS. The registered manager was in the process of assessing people’s care plans to make sure they had the proper authority to deprive a person of their liberty if it was in their best interests. For people with complex needs, records showed that their representatives or families and other health professionals were involved in making decisions in their best interests.

People were offered meals that were suitable for their individual dietary needs and met their preferences. People were supported to eat and drink according to their needs, which minimised risks to their nutrition.

People were cared for by kind and compassionate staff who knew their individual preferences for care and their likes and dislikes. Staff ensured people obtained advice and support from other health professionals to maintain and improve their health.

People and their representatives were involved in planning and agreeing how they were cared for and supported. Care was planned to meet people’s individual needs and abilities and care plans were regularly reviewed.

The quality monitoring system included regular reviews of people’s care plans and checks on medicines management and staff’s practice. Accidents, incidents, falls and complaints were investigated and actions taken to minimise the risks of a re-occurrence. Staff were guided and supported in their practice by a registered manager they liked and respected.

Improvements were required in assessing risks to the premises to ensure the building and equipment were maintained to a standard that supported best infection prevention and control practice.

Inspection areas



Updated 19 February 2016

The service was safe. Staff understood their responsibilities to protect people from the risk of abuse. Risks to people’s individual health and wellbeing were identified and care was planned to minimise the risks. The registered manager checked staff’s suitability for their role before they started working at the home. Medicines were stored, administered and managed safely.



Updated 19 February 2016

The service was effective. People were cared for and supported by staff who relevant training and skills. Staff understood their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The registered manager understood their legal obligations under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. People’s nutritional and specialist dietary needs were taken into account in menu planning and choices. People were referred to other healthcare services when their health needs changed.



Updated 19 February 2016

The service was caring. Staff were kind and compassionate towards people. Staff knew people well and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff promoted people’s independence, by encouraging them to make their own decisions.



Updated 19 February 2016

The service was responsive. People and their families were involved in planning how they were cared for and supported. Staff understood people’s preferences, likes and dislikes. Staff supported and encouraged people to take an interest in their surroundings and their community. The registered manager took action to resolve complaints to the complainant’s satisfaction.


Requires improvement

Updated 19 February 2016

The service was not consistently well led. The provider’s risk assessments of the premises had not identified some issues and equipment that required replacement or refurbishment. People, their relatives, staff and other health professionals were encouraged to share their opinions about the quality of the service. The registered manager and staff and checked that people received the care and support they needed.