Seaview

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

The registered manager had completed a pre-admission assessment and continued to assess people’s needs. They told us, “I review the pre-assessment information sent from the persons’ social worker and consider if they would suit our service. The assessment and transition would be a long one. I would assess them in different places and build their care plan with them and include the people important to them. Their key worker would review the care plan monthly.” Staff told us they were involved in assessing people’s needs.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

There was clear evidence that people’s wishes and preferences were consistently documented within their care plans. These records captured how each person preferred to receive care. The documentation included personal preferences such as chosen foods, hobbies and preferred social interest.

During our visit, it was evident that staff had a good understanding of people’s needs. Throughout our observations, staff members were meaningfully engaging with people through activity, conversation or providing assistance when needed. Staff used a range of tools to communicate with people which included objects of reference, British sign language, writing with symbols, and verbal prompts. This immediate and attentive approach contributed positively to the overall environment, ensuring that people felt supported and valued.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

During our visit, we noted strong teamwork among staff members. Staff were seen engaging in open discussions about the tasks that required completion and consulting with people regarding their preferences for daily activities. In addition, we observed staff covering for each other to provide colleagues the opportunity to perform non direct care duties and acknowledging information that needed to be handed over to the next shift. This indicated effective communication and information sharing between staff teams.

One staff member said, “Staff work well together, we are a good team, most of us have been here a long time."

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

A relative said, “My [relative] receives individual care to a very high level, including personalised outings. The food is excellent, my [relative] goes on holiday with the staff and regularly out for coffee, the spa, swimming, zoo, and for long walks and visits to the countryside, seaside, and trips to the shops.”

Based on our observations and feedback from staff and relatives, we found clear evidence that people received annual health appointments and appointments being arranged when they required them. This included a range of essential services, such as opticians' appointments, dental check-ups, and routine health assessments with GPs.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

We observed people having 1 to 1 staff with them all day. This allowed staff to be present and monitor how people were engaging and feeling and adapt their approach accordingly.

We also observed residents feedback questionnaires being used to capture people’s views on their care and treatment. These were in an accessible format. We saw evidence of how 1 person was given the opportunity to move bedrooms following feedback.

We saw evidence that people had asked to visit places within the community and staff had facilitated this. For example, a football stadium and a London theatre.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

The service demonstrated a robust commitment to working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. People were supported to make their own decisions wherever possible, and any decisions made on their behalf were carefully considered in their best interests and the least restrictive as possible. For example, we read in 1 person’s care plan that they should put on their own lap-belt when using their wheelchair in the community because they had capacity for this.

Where people lacked capacity, we saw the legal authorisations to deprive them of their liberty was managed appropriately, with all conditions met and regularly reviewed.

All staff participated in regular training sessions designed to ensure that their knowledge and understanding of the MCA framework remained current and robust.