You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 27 April 2018

This inspection took place on 6 March 2018 and was unannounced. This meant the staff and provider did not know we would be visiting.

Seaton Hall Residential Home is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Seaton Hall Residential Home accommodates up to 29 older people who require personal care in one adapted building. At the time of our inspection, there were 23 people using the service.

The service had a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service. Like 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.

Seaton Hall was last inspected by CQC in January 2017 and was rated Requires improvement overall. At the inspection in January 2017 we identified the following breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014: Regulation 17 (Good governance). This was because the provider's governance system had not always been effective in identifying or addressing improvements to the service. At this inspection we found improvements had been made in all the areas identified at the previous inspection.

Accidents and incidents were appropriately recorded and investigated. Risk assessments were in place for people who used the service and described potential risks and the safeguards in place to mitigate these risks.

The registered manager understood their responsibilities with regard to safeguarding and staff had been trained in safeguarding vulnerable adults.

Medicines were stored safely and securely, and procedures were in place to ensure people received medicines as prescribed.

The home was clean and suitable for the people who used the service, and appropriate health and safety checks had been carried out.

There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty in order to meet the needs of people who used the service. Staff were suitably trained and received regular supervisions and appraisals.

The provider carried out relevant vetting checks when they employed staff. However, there was no record of what documents had been checked to confirm the proof of identity of new staff. We have made a recommendation about this.

People were 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.

People were protected from the risk of poor nutrition and staff were aware of people’s nutritional needs. Care records contained evidence of people being supported during visits to and from external health care specialists.

People who used the service and family members were complimentary about the standard of care at Seaton Hall Residential Home. Staff treated people with dignity and respect and helped to maintain people’s independence by encouraging them to care for themselves where possible.

Care records showed that people’s needs were assessed before they started using the service and support plans were written in a person-centred way. Person-centred is about ensuring the person is at the centre of any care or support plans and their individual wishes, needs and choices are taken into account.

Activities were arranged for people who used the service based on their likes and interests, and to help meet their social needs. The service had good links with the local community.

People who used the service and family members were aware of how to make a complaint however there had been no formal complaints recorded at the service.

The provider had an effective quality assurance process in place. Staff said they felt supported

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 27 April 2018

The service was safe.

Staffing levels were appropriate to meet the needs of people who used the service and relevant vetting checks had taken place for new staff.

Accidents and incidents were appropriately recorded and investigated, and appropriate risk assessments were in place.

The registered manager was aware of their responsibilities with regards to safeguarding and staff had been trained in how to protect vulnerable adults.

People were protected against the risks associated with the unsafe use and management of medicines.

Effective

Good

Updated 27 April 2018

The service was effective.

Staff were suitably trained and received regular supervisions and appraisals.

People’s needs were assessed before they began using the service.

The provider was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).

People had access to healthcare services and received ongoing healthcare support.

Caring

Good

Updated 27 April 2018

The service was caring.

Staff treated people with dignity and respect and independence was promoted.

People were well presented and staff talked with people in a polite and respectful manner.

People had been involved in writing their care plans and their wishes were taken into consideration.

Responsive

Good

Updated 27 April 2018

The service was responsive.

Care records were written in a person centred way.

The home had a full programme of activities in place for people who used the service.

The provider had an effective complaints policy and procedure in place and people knew how to make a complaint.

Well-led

Good

Updated 27 April 2018

The service was well-led.

The service had a positive culture that was person-centred, open and inclusive.

The provider had a robust quality assurance system in place and gathered information about the quality of their service from a variety of sources.

The service had good links with the local community.