You are here

Sea Gables Residential Home Requires improvement

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 14 December 2018

Sea Gables Residential Home is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. This inspection took place on 1 and 3 October 2018 and was unannounced.

The service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

Sea Gables is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to seven people and seven people were being accommodated at the time of the inspection. The home is based on two floors and is situated close to local facilities and shops. All bedrooms had en-suite bathrooms and there was a choice of communal areas where people could choose to spend their time.

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.

At our last inspection, in May 2016, we identified no concerns and rated the service as good. At this inspection, however, we identified some areas for improvement.

CQC were not always notified of significant events. There was a quality assurance process in place, but this was not always used effectively to identifying concerns and bring about improvement.

Best practice guidance was not always followed to ensure medicines were consistently recorded, stored and disposed of safely.

There were clear recruitment procedures in place; however, these were not always followed fully to help ensure only suitable staff were employed.

Arrangements were in place to deal with foreseeable emergencies, although some staff were not clear about the action to take in the event of a fire.

Staff protected people’s rights and acted in their best interests, although they were not always clear about the extent of their role under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Procedures to use low-level interventions, to support people who could behave in a way that put themselves or others at risk, were not robust.

Most staff had received sufficient training to enable them to support people effectively, although a night support worker had not completed some essential training.

Individual risks to people were usually managed effectively and people were involved in risk-taking decisions. Infection risks were managed appropriately for the size and type of service.

People felt safe living at Sea Gables. Staff used innovative techniques to help people understand safeguarding and protect them from the risk of abuse.

There were enough staff available to meet people’s care needs and support them with activities. Staff were appropriately supported in their role by managers.

People’s nutritional and dietary needs were met consistently. The home had been adapted to meet people’s needs.

Staff supported people to access healthcare services when needed and helped ensure they experienced a smooth transition when they moved into or out of the service.

People were supported by kind, caring and compassionate staff who knew them well. They interacted positively with people and helped boost people’s morale and feelings of self-worth through a ‘Housemate of the month’ scheme.

Staff encouraged people to be as independent as possible, used appropriate techniques to communicate with them and involved them in planning the care and support they received.

Staff respected people’s sexuality, privacy and dignity. They supported people to build and maintain relationships with people im

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 14 December 2018

The service was not always safe.

Best practice guidance was not always followed to ensure medicines were consistently managed safely.

Appropriate recruitment procedures were in place, but these were not always followed fully to ensure staff were suitable for their role.

Individual and environmental risks to people were usually managed effectively, although some staff did not fully understand the fire safety procedures.

There were systems in place to protect people from the risk of infection.

Staff used innovative techniques to help people understand safeguarding and to protect them from the risk of abuse.

There were enough staff available to meet people’s care needs and support them with activities.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 14 December 2018

The service was not always effective.

Staff acted in people’s best interests, but were not always clear about the extent of their role under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Procedures to use of low-level interventions, to support people who could behave in a way that put them of others at risk, were not robust.

Staff were competent and understood people’s needs. However, a night staff member had not received some essential training.

Staff were appropriately supported in their roles by managers.

People's nutrition and dietary needs were met and they received a choice of meals, snacks and drinks suited to their needs.

Staff supported people to access other healthcare services, including routine medical appointments. They also supported people when they moved into or out of the service.

Adaptations had been made to the home to help make it supportive of the people who lived there. The provider was exploring new ways to support people through the use of technology.

Caring

Good

Updated 14 December 2018

The service was caring.

People were supported by kind, caring and compassionate staff who knew them well.

Staff encouraged people to be as independent as possible.

Staff used appropriate techniques to communicate effectively with people.

Staff respected people’s sexuality and supported them to build and maintain relationships with people important to them.

Staff protected people’s privacy and respected their dignity. They involved people and their families, where appropriate, in planning the care and support they received.

Responsive

Good

Updated 14 December 2018

The service was responsive.

People received personalised care and support from staff who understood and met their needs well.

Staff treated people as individuals and put them at the heart of the service.

People’s care plans contained detailed information about their needs and were reviewed regularly.

People were supported to access the community, take part in a wide range of activities and lead happy, fulfilled lives. They were encouraged to develop independent living skills by setting personal goals.

People felt able to raise concerns and there was an accessible complaints procedure in place.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 14 December 2018

The service was not always well-led.

CQC were not always notified of significant events.

There was a quality assurance process in place, but this was not always used effectively to identifying concerns and bring about improvement.

There was a clear management structure in place. Staff were motivated, happy in their work and felt supported by the management.

The views of people, staff and professionals were sought and acted on.

Staff demonstrated a commitment to the ethos of the service by supporting people in a personalised way to the best of their abilities.

Community links had been developed which benefited people and reduced the risk of them becoming socially isolated.