Seaton Hall Residential Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

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

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 64 (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 were at the centre of their care and treatment choices, and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Care plans were not always person-centred. The provider used an electronic care planning system; this prepopulated care plans with generic information which could not be deleted. This meant some care plans did not contain accurate information on how to support people safely. The registered manager was addressing this matter with the software provider.

During our inspection we observed person-centred interactions between staff and people. A visiting professional told us, “It is lovely to see the way the staff have a really good relationship with the residents. I observe staff talking to residents, usually when they don't know that I am looking, and they talk politely and in a respectful manner, treating people like I would want my own family to be treated.”

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The service worked with commissioners to ensure that continuity of care was managed. Staff worked with health and social care professionals to ensure people received consistent joined up care. The service organised and supported one person to continue accessing community-based activities they had previously enjoyed prior to moving to the service.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The Accessible Information standard was not embedded in the service. There was no evidence that information was being delivered in accessible formats for people who required them. Care plans lacked detail on how to support people who used different communication methods and were generic.

The registered manager told us if a person requested a different format, such as large print or easy read, it would be made available for them.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment, and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

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.’ People and relatives knew how to raise a complaint, if needed. A relative told us, “I would go to the boss if I had a complaint, but I have nothing to complain about.” Staff said they were confident that appropriate action would be taken if they raised a concern or complaint.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The service supported people to access healthcare services. Staff advocated for people, when required, including addressing communication barriers and ensuring accessible access.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes, and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

The provider ensured people’s human rights were protected. Staff had completed equality and diversity training. Staff advocated for people to ensure they were not discriminated against.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

The registered manager told us ‘End of life’ discussions were offered to people, but many declined. End of life care plans were generic and contained basic information. The registered manager told us they could not delete the prepopulated information and were in discussions with the software provider to resolve the issue.