Seaton Hall Residential Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing, and communication needs with them.

Information detailing people’s condition and diagnoses were not always adopted into their care plans. This meant it was difficult to determine what condition had led to their admission and if there were any triggers which might show someone was relapsing. The registered manager advised that care plans were being reviewed, and this type of information will be added.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

All staff (including kitchen staff) were aware of people’s specific dietary needs and how to support people to remain safe. People were regularly consulted about menus. A person told us, “The food is a great choice.”

The service delivered care and support in line with best practice guidance. The registered manager monitored records relating to weight management, nutrition, and hydration.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

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. Staff recognised changes in people’s needs and referrals were made in a timely manner. A professional told us, “Seaton Hall work in partnership with other agencies, and are always completely transparent in their approach, and make referrals to other agencies, when needed.”

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Staff supported people to access a range of healthcare professionals to manage their general health. People had regular access to the local GP, chiropodist, dentist, and optician. The registered manager told us about the introduction of a weekly GP visit and how it had resulted in positive, quick interventions for people.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

A professional told us how the service had supported a person with substance abuse to adopt a healthier lifestyle. They were subsequently reassessed as having capacity and transitioned to independent living.

Staff recorded monitoring information including fluid intake, positional changes, and safety checks on the new electronic system.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Staff understood the importance of ensuring that people fully understood what they were consenting to and the importance of obtaining consent before they delivered care or treatment. Records showed people were supported by a Relevant Person's Representative (RPR) when required. An RPR acts as an independent advocate and ensures the person's views, wishes, and rights are respected and protected.

The electronic care planning system did not always support the Mental Capacity Act and associated codes of practice. At the start of each care plan, it applied the test of capacity. The registered manager told us they could not delete the prepopulated information and had approached the care planning software provider to resolve the issue.