Seaview

We found the following examples of good practice.

The premises were very clean and hygienic. Cleaning schedules were in place including for touch points.

Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and appropriate handwashing and sanitising facilities were available to staff.

The staff and residents were taking part in regular COVID-19 testing and people's temperatures were taken.

The local health authority had provided training on the wearing of PPE and pictorial guidance was displayed. There were pictorial hand washing signs at sinks for people using the service

People were supported to stay in touch with their families through telephone calls and electronic devices.

People accessed the community for drives and for exercise in local safe spaces.

About the service:- Seaview caters for up to five people with learning disabilities. At the time of our inspection five people were using the service. The service had spacious living areas and was set over two floors. The service was set in a residential area with easy access to the local community and had a large garden. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

People’s experience of using this service:

The service was safe. Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. There were systems in place to minimise the risk of infection and to learn lessons from accidents and incidents. People were cared for safely by staff who had been recruited and employed after appropriate checks had been completed. People’s needs were met by sufficient numbers of staff. Medication was dispensed by staff who had received training to do so.

The service was effective. People were cared for and supported by staff who had received training to support people to meet their needs. The registered manager had a good understanding of their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.

People were supported to eat and drink enough to ensure they maintained a balanced diet and referrals to other health professionals were made when required. The environment was well maintained and suitable for the needs of people.

The service was caring. Staff cared for people in an empathetic and kind manner. Staff had a good understanding of people’s preferences of care. Staff always worked hard to promote people’s independence through encouraging and supporting people to make informed choices.

The service was responsive. People and their relatives were involved in the planning and review of their care. Care plans were reviewed on a regular basis. People were supported to follow their interests and participate in social activities. The registered manager responded to complaints received in a timely manner.

The service was well-led. The registered manager had systems in place to monitor and provide good care and these were reviewed on a regular basis.

Rating at last inspection: Good (report published 6 May 2016)

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor all intelligence received about the service to ensure the next planned inspection is scheduled accordingly.

There was a registered manager in post. 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.

People received care that was personalised to them and met their individual needs and wishes. Staff communicated well with people and were attentive to their needs. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity and interacted with people in a caring, compassionate and professional manner. The atmosphere in the service was friendly and welcoming.

Systems were in place which safeguarded the people who used the service from the potential risk of abuse. Staff understood the various types of abuse and knew who to report any concerns to.

Staff knew how to minimise risks and provide people with safe care. Procedures and processes guided staff on how to ensure the safety of the people who used the service. These included checks on the environment and risk assessments which identified how risks to people were minimised.

Recruitment checks on staff were carried out with sufficient numbers employed who had the knowledge and skills to meet people’s needs.

Appropriate arrangements were in place to ensure people’s medicines were obtained, stored and administered safely. People were encouraged to attend appointments with other health care professionals to maintain their health and well-being.

Care and support was based on the assessed needs of each person. People’s care records contained information about how they communicated and their ability to make decisions. People were encouraged to pursue their hobbies and interests and to maintain links within the community.

People or their representatives were supported to make decisions about how they led their lives and wanted to be supported. Where they lacked capacity, appropriate actions had been taken to ensure decisions were made in the person’s best interests. The service was up to date regarding the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

People’s nutritional needs were being assessed and they were supported to eat and drink sufficiently. People were encouraged to be as independent as possible but where additional support was needed this was provided in a caring, respectful manner.

There was an open and transparent culture in the service. Staff were aware of the values of the service and understood their roles and responsibilities. Audits and quality assurance surveys were used to identify shortfalls and drive improvement in the service.

We saw that staff treated people with respect and encouraged them to make choices and express their views. It was evident that staff knew people well and were caring in the way they supported people.

There were systems in place to support people to take their medication appropriately and safely.

The environment at Seaview Care Home was homely and people's bedrooms were decorated according to their preferences.

The provider had processes in place to seek the opinions of people who lived at Seaview Care Home and their relatives. They also carried out checks to monitor the quality and safety of the service.