Seaview

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs. At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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 were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Care plans demonstrated a person-centred focus, placing each person’s needs, preferences and personal background at the heart of the support delivered by the staff team. Care plans contained comprehensive information about people’s life stories and what they preferred, such as their backgrounds, interests, dislikes, and the people or things that mattered most to them. Care plans also contained an accessible version of their care plan using symbols in place of words enabling people to better understand what had been recorded about them.

One staff member said, “We consider and adapt our approach based on people’s needs and personal preferences, making provision for people’s differences in a person-centred manner, ensuring good communication and respecting everyone.”

Staff knew people well, and for those unable to communicate verbally, staff were able to engage with them effectively. People’s rooms were personalised and arranged in line with their preferences. There were also photographs displayed within the service showing people taking part in activities together.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

People’s care records provided clear evidence the provider collaborated closely with other health services such as social workers, GPs, and other specialists. This partnership approach was designed to ensure that people received the right support that was tailored to their needs.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

One family member said, “The way staff and the registered manager communicate with nonverbal people is amazing.”

Staff used a range of communication tools to ensure information was accessible to everyone. This included picture, visual aids and easy read documents, British sign language and Makaton to help people understand their choices and day-to-day plans.

Staff told us they had access to the service’s policies and procedures in both electronic and paper formats and stated they were aware of how to find this information.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. A complaints policy was in place, and a feedback box was available for visitors to use.

Staff told us they were involved in reviewing care plans and actively engaged people and their families in making decisions about their care and communicated any changes that resulted from their input. Meetings were held with people using the service to discuss important matters such as menu planning.

The provider ensured all staff had good communication skills so they could effectively communicate with people.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The provider minimised barriers or delays for people accessing support by ensuring people had access to a dedicated 1 to 1 member of staff. This was particularly important in complex or multi-agency environments, where people may require input from staff to aid communication or to manage their anxieties when things do not go as planned within the community.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

People were supported to access a wide range of activities based on their choices. The provider had systems to ensure people's feedback was received. Staff provided people with person-centred care and people were given choices and encouraged to follow their interests. People were encouraged to maintain contact with friends and relatives so that their independence was promoted, and the risk of social isolation was minimised.

Staff all spoke about a wide range of activities that took place within the community, this included, bowling, swimming, spa access, walks, theatres, day centres, shopping and holidays. Additionally, we saw in a person’s care plan details about what may cause them to become anxious when planning events such as holidays and how staff should approach this.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

At the time of our assessment, no one needed end of life care; however, the provider did have a suitable policy in place for such circumstances.

The registered manager said, “We have supported someone through end of life and we worked closely with the community nurses who came in daily to provide the care. We stepped back and became more of a compassion service in the final days allowing the professional palliative care team to provide direct support.”