• Care Home
  • Care home

Seymour House

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

21, 23 & 25 Seymour Road, Slough, Berkshire, SL1 2NS (01753) 820731

Provided and run by:
Committed Care Services Limited

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Our current view of the service

Requires improvement

Updated 10 March 2025

Date of assessment: 28 and 29 April 2025. The service is a care home without nursing providing support to people with learning disabilities and/or autism.This assessment took place due to concerns received about people’s care, risks, medicine, staffing and governance oversight at the service.

The provider was in breach of the legal regulations relating to person-centred care, risk management, safety of premises and equipment, staff recruitment, need for consent and good governance. The provider and the registered manager did not demonstrate they had robust quality assurance systems and governance processes which operated across all levels of the service. The provider had not followed their own policies or best practice guidance to effectively assess, monitor and mitigate any risks relating to the health, safety and welfare of people using the service and others. This included not using safe recruitment procedures to employ staff, not ensuring premises and equipment were safe to use including fire safety and medicines records keeping. This put people at increased risk of harm. The provider needed to review and improve staff deployment and how staff's training needs and skills were managed in order to meet some people's specific needs. Staff did not always support people to take part in meaningful activities and ensure people could pursue their interests in their local area with people who had shared interests and achieve their aspirations and goals.

Staff did not always have the right knowledge and skills to encourage and enable people to take positive risks, respond with kindness and understand individual needs. People were not always supported by staff who understood their different range of needs or sensitivities.People’s relatives were involved in reviewing and planning their care. However, we were not assured people’s views and decisions were fully considered. The provider did not ensure staff carrying our capacity assessments and best interest decisions were knowledgeable and skilful to complete those.We were not always assured the provider, the management team and staff were working together to ensure the risks of a closed culture were minimised so that people received support based on transparency, respect and positive culture in the service.Staff told us how they protected people from abuse and how they would report such incidents. The service worked with other agencies to do so. Staff had training on how to recognise and report abuse and they knew how to apply it.For services for people with a learning disability and autistic people, include reference to Statutory guidance: Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture (RS, RC, RC) where appropriate and that we have assessed against it. At the end of the summary add the following statement so the reader can understand what right care etc means.We have assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted.

 

People's experience of the service

Updated 10 March 2025

 

We observed the interactions and communication between people and staff throughout our site visit. We briefly spoke to 3 people using the service during our site visit. We also spoke to 2 relatives after the site visit. While relatives expressed that they were generally happy with their family members’ care, our assessment found some elements of care did not always meet the expected standards.

People were not always supported to have choice and control of their lives and in their best interests and were not always supported by staff or the provider to express their views and to be involved in decisions about their care. Staff did not always support people to make decisions following best practice in decision-making. Staff did not always communicate with people in ways that met their needs. The policies and systems in the service did not support the practice and oversight of people’s care and treatment. The provider sought some feedback from people but there was no real structure to demonstrate how it was used effectively to review the quality of care provided and, improve and/or develop the service.People had quite clear and detailed plans of care and different risk assessments. However, we did not always observe people received personalised care which should be responsive to their needs. For example, people were supported to eat and drink however they did not always have full control and choice regarding snacks and drinks.Staff supported people to see some healthcare professionals in order to maintain good health and wellbeing. Staff did not always focus on people's strengths. Staff did not always promote what people could do, so they had a fulfilling and meaningful life.We observed at times staff did not always speak to people politely and did not give them time to respond and express their wishes.