You are here

Archived: Seabrooke Manor Care Home Requires improvement

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 17, 18 September 2014
Date of Publication: 28 October 2014
Inspection Report published 28 October 2014 PDF | 93.66 KB


Inspection carried out on 17, 18 September 2014

During a routine inspection

Two inspectors carried out this inspection. We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask:-

� Is the service safe?

� Is the service effective?

� Is the service caring?

� Is the service responsive?

� Is the service well led?

This is a summary of what we found.

Is the service safe?

We spent time in all four units and observed how people were supported by the staff. We saw that staff treated people with respect and were kind to them. Relatives told us that they felt people were safe. One relative told us, �I think about [my relative] all the time but I know they are safe here. The care is great.� Another said, �I�m confident she is very safe here.� However, for some people, we found that their care and treatment did not reflect relevant research and guidance. It was not planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare.

Staff had received training in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). When there were concerns about a person's ability to make a decision affecting their safety and welfare a mental capacity assessment had been carried out and a DoLS put in place. However, specific aspects of decision making had not been explored and some aspects of people�s care and support may have been provided without appropriate consents.

We found that the provider had effective recruitment and selection procedures in place. Hence, staff were appropriately recruited to ensure that they were suitable to work with vulnerable adults.

Is the service effective?

People were supported to receive the healthcare that they needed. Records showed that people saw the relevant healthcare professionals. For example, we saw that referrals were made to the dietician when there were concerns about people�s weight. The GP, dietician and tissue viability nurse were all involved in peoples� care when needed.

People's care needs were assessed and plans of care developed from these. Staff had a good understanding of people's individual and assessed needs and of individual preferences. However, updates to care plans did not always reflect relevant changes in the person�s health and/or wellbeing.

Is the service caring?

Relatives and people who used the service were positive about the care provided by the staff team. One relative told us, �They do look after her well.� A person who used the service told us �The attitude of staff towards residents is very good.�

We observed that staff supported people where required and were respectful of their privacy.

Is the service responsive?

Care staff were able to tell us about peoples� needs and how they supported and cared for them. The service was responsive to their changing needs. For example, we saw that timely referrals were made to the GP when there were concerns about a person refusing their medication.

Is the service well led?

The service had a registered manager in post and a clear management structure that included a clinical lead and a lead person for each of the four units. Staff we spoke with said they felt that they received the support and guidance they needed to carry out their duties and to meet people�s needs. We observed a daily meeting held by the manager with the heads of each unit and of ancillary services. At this meeting information was shared about issues, what was happening on each unit as well as any concerns with regard to ancillary services. This enabled the management team to monitor the service provided.