During an assessment under our new approach
Date of Assessment: 18 to 22 August 2025. Seaton Hall Residential Home is a care home registered for accommodation for people who require nursing or personal care.
It is registered to accommodate up to 29 older and younger adults some of whom are living with dementia. At the time of our inspection, there were 25 people using the service.
The last rating for this service was good (report published 26 April 2018). We conducted this assessment due to the age of the previous rating.
Risks to people were not always identified and managed safely. Systems and processes in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service were not effective. Quality assurance systems in place had failed to identify areas where the service was not operating safely and exposing people to a risk of harm. On the first day of inspection, we raised concerns about the general cleanliness of the premises. Infection control risks for people were not always well managed over an extended period. Care records were generic and were not always accurate or complete, they did not always contain sufficient information to enable staff to support people safely.
The registered manager took immediate action to address the issues we highlighted, including seeking support from the local NHS Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) nurse, created new documentation and consulted with the software providers of their care planning system.
Processes were in place to ensure people were protected from the risk of abuse and harm. Staff had completed safeguarding training. Medicines were managed safely.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People were supported to maintain their interests and to access the wider community.
Staff worked well together to ensure people's needs were met. The registered manager told us they had a good working relationship with external healthcare professionals.
People, relatives, and staff were encouraged to give feedback about the service. Residents’ meetings were regularly held, and all visitors were invited to complete a ‘Visitors’ Quality Assurance Survey.’
The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to safe care and treatment, assessing the risk of, and preventing, detecting, and controlling the spread of infections, and good governance.
We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.