You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 13 April 2017

The Seagulls is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to six adults with a learning disability. People living in the service had some physical care needs and some limitations to verbal communication and used body language to express their views. The service also supports people with a dementia. Six people lived at the service at the time of our inspection. This inspection took place on 9 March 2017 and was unannounced. The Seagulls was full with six people living in the service.

The service had a registered manager who was also one of the partners who owned the service. 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.

Some risks to safety had not been fully assessed, identified and responded to. This included the possible risk of fire at night. Staffing deployment and fire procedures at night did not ensure all people could be evacuated safely. The registered manager was following this safety matter up with the fire and rescue service.

People were looked after by staff who knew and understood their individual needs well. Staff treated people with kindness and compassion and supported them to maintain their independence and emotional welfare. People and relatives and visiting professionals were positive about the care, the approach of the staff and atmosphere in the home. Staff showed respect and maintained people’s dignity. People had access to health care professionals when needed.

People’s medicines were stored, administered and disposed of safely by staff that were suitably trained. People were protected from the risk of abuse because staff had a good understanding of safeguarding procedures and knew what actions to take if they believed people were at risk of abuse. Staff were trained on the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The registered and deputy manager worked with the DoLS assessors to ensure the rights of people were maintained.

Staff were provided with a training programme which supported them to meet people’s needs. Staff were well motivated and given the opportunity to develop their skills. Staff felt well supported and on call arrangements ensured suitable management cover. Recruitment records showed there were systems in place to ensure staff were suitable to work with people who lived in the home.

People had the opportunity to take part in any activity that they wanted to and to socialise with relatives and friends. Staff related to people as individuals and took an interest in what was important to them. Activities and outings arranged took account of people’s choices and preferences. Visitors told us they were warmly welcomed and people were supported in maintaining their own friendships and relationships.

People liked the food provided and were involved in the planning of menus. People had enough to eat and drink and their nutritional needs were assessed and monitored when needed. People were given information on how to make a complaint and any concerns raised were responded to appropriately. There was an open culture at the home and this was promoted by the staff and management arrangements. People were asked for their feedback about the service and this was acted on.

There was an open culture in the service with the registered and deputy manager being visible and approachable. Staff enjoyed working at the home and felt supported. Feedback was regularly sought from people, relatives and staff. People were encouraged to share their views on a daily basis and satisfaction surveys had been completed. People were given information on how to make a complaint and said they were comfortable to raise a concern or to give feedback.

Inspection areas


Requires improvement

Updated 13 April 2017

The service was not consistently safe.

The provider had not ensured the service had suitable arrangements to ensure the safety of people in the event all emergencies.

Recruitment practices ensured all the required checks on staff had been completed before they worked unsupervised. There were enough staff to meet people’s care needs.

Staff were able to recognise different types of abuse and understood the procedures to be followed to report any an allegation or suspicion of abuse to protect people.

Medicines were stored appropriately and there were systems in place to manage medicines safely.



Updated 13 April 2017

The service was effective.

Staff were aware of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and how to involve appropriate people in the decision making process if someone lacked capacity to make a decision.

Staff ensured people had access to healthcare professionals, as and when they needed them.

Staff were suitably trained and supported to deliver care in a way that responded to people’s changing needs.

People’s nutritional needs were met. People were consulted about their food preferences and were given choices to select from



Updated 13 April 2017

The service was caring.

People were supported by kind and caring staff who knew them well and treated them as individuals.

People and relatives were positive about the care and support provided by staff.

People were encouraged to make their own choices and had their privacy and dignity respected.



Updated 13 April 2017

The service was responsive.

People received care and support that was responsive to their needs and staff knew them well.

People were able to make individual and everyday choices and staff supported people to do this.

People had the opportunity to engage in a choice of activity and staff supported people to spend time doing what they liked to do.

There was a complaints procedure and people were supported to raise concerns if they wanted to. Complaints were responded to appropriately.



Updated 13 April 2017

The service was well-led.

Quality monitoring systems were in place to identify areas for improvement and to monitor the quality of the care and facilities.

The registered manager and deputy manager were seen as approachable and supportive. The culture in the home was open and relaxed.

People and staff were consulted about the service and information gained was used to improve the service.