You are here

Reports


Inspection carried out on 17 January 2019

During a routine inspection

About the service:

Seaton House provides accommodation, care and support for up to nine people who experience learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorder.

There were nine people living at Seaton House at the time of the inspection.

The service worked within the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensured that people could live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence.

What life is like for people using this service:

People received safe and effective care from staff who understood how to recognise and report issues of concern and potential abuse. They were supported with positive risk taking which, whilst promoting their safety, enabled them to develop their independence. People were actively involved in planning and reviewing the care and support they received.

People received responsive care and support from staff who were well trained and demonstrated the principles of person centred care within their work. People were encouraged and supported to achieve the goals they set for themselves.

People were treated with respect and kindness and their rights were upheld. They were supported to express their views and opinions, which were listened to and acted upon. Staff understood people’s preferences and choices and respected the decisions they made.

Staff had opportunities to develop maintain and develop their skills and knowledge. They were positive in their views about the support and training they received and demonstrated a committed approach to service development.

There was an open and inclusive culture within the home which enabled people who lived there, and staff, to share ideas and work in partnership with each other. People who lived in the home, and staff, expressed confidence in the registered manager and their approach to leadership.

There were clear systems in place to monitor the quality of the services provided and take improvement actions when any shortfalls were identified.

More information is set out in the detailed findings below.

Rating at last inspection:

Seaton House was last inspected on 10 June 2016 and was rated as good overall.

Why we inspected:

This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection. Seaton House remained rated good overall.

Follow up:

We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about Seaton House until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.

Inspection carried out on 10 June 2016

During a routine inspection

We inspected Seaton House on 10 June 2016. The inspection was unannounced.

Seaton House is situated in Louth, close to the town centre. The home is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to nine adults who experience needs associated with learning disabilities. At the time of the inspection nine gentlemen were living in the home.

There was an established registered manager in post at the time of the inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.

People’s rights were respected and they were supported to make decisions and choices for themselves wherever possible. Staff understood how to support people to make decisions and choices in line with legal guidance. CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. DoLS are in place to protect people where they do not have capacity to make decisions and where it is considered necessary to restrict their freedom in some way, usually to protect themselves. At the time of the inspection two people were awaiting the outcome of applications for DoLS authorisations.

People were supported to stay safe by staff who understood how to how to help them avoid the risk of accidents and protect them from abuse. Their support was provided in a kind and caring way. Staff promoted their privacy and dignity and respected their confidential information.

People were treated with respect and they were involved in planning they ways in which staff supported them. They were encouraged to express their views and opinions about how their support was provided.

People had access to the healthcare services they needed and staff supported them to eat and drink enough to stay healthy. Their medicines were managed safely.

People had the support they needed and wanted to enable them to develop active social lives and pursue the hobbies and interests that were important to them.

Staff were trained and guided about how to provide people’s support in the right way and there were enough staff on duty to do so. The provider had systems in place to ensure staff who were employed were suitable to work with the people who lived in the home.

The home was run in an open and inclusive way. People who lived there and staff members were encouraged to express their views and be involved in how the home was run. Systems were in place to regularly check the quality of the services and facilities provided in the home.

Inspection carried out on 9 May 2013

During a routine inspection

We looked at three people’s care records which included their care plans, risk assessments and health plans. These were clear, person-centred, detailed and provided up to date information on how their diverse needs should be met.

People’s rooms were personalised and they were surrounded by their own possessions. People were issued with keys to their rooms if they wished to lock them.

We looked at the menus and saw they offered a wide range of hot and cold meals. We were told discussions took place between staff and people who lived at the home to promote awareness of nutrition and hydration.

We saw one person had been indentified as being at risk of poor calorie intake. Their nutritional plan had been personalised for them by their care workers in order to increase their daily calorie intake. Suggestions included, “XX to have full fat milk” and “XX is to add butter and grated cheese to vegetables, pasta, rice or soups.”

We looked around the home and observed a good overall standard of cleanliness. We saw people’s rooms were clean and communal areas were clean and tidy. The home was free from mal odour.

We reviewed the staff rotas. We saw one care worker, known as a house parent, and the registered manager were on duty throughout the day. The member of staff we spoke with told us there was a handover period with the night staff both in the morning and evening so that medication could be administered by two house parents.

Inspection carried out on 17 January 2013

During a routine inspection

During our inspection we spoke with four people who used the service. They spoke positively about the care and support they received. They told us they liked living in the home and confirmed they were well supported to make choices and decisions about their care. One person said, "I like everything about living here."

People told us they were encouraged to be as independent as possible. One person told us they enjoyed cooking spaghetti bolognaise and another person told us about their jobs at a local restaurant and with the advocacy service.

We observed people who used the service were confident in approaching staff. Staff treated them with respect and patience. People confirmed they felt safe and said they liked the staff who looked after them. One person told us, "I feel safe here, staff are great.”

People had opportunities to comment on the service through regular meetings and surveys. People told us they enjoyed going to the house meetings and they felt comfortable about making suggestions and talking about concerns.

Reports under our old system of regulation (including those from before CQC was created)