You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 27 October 2017

This inspection took place on the 20 September 2017 and was unannounced. Seabourne House provides accommodation and support for up to five people who may have a learning disability, autistic spectrum disorder or physical disabilities. At the time of the inspection four people were living at the service. All people had access to a communal lounge/dining area, kitchen, a shared bathroom and well maintained garden. Two people had bedrooms on the ground floor; two people had bedrooms on the first floor.

The service had a registered manager in post. The registered manager also had oversight of two other services. A registered manager is a person who is 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. The registered manager was present throughout the inspection.

The previous inspection on 21 and 22 June 2016 found five breaches of our regulations, an overall rating of requires improvement was given at that inspection. The provider had resolved the issues raised at the previous inspection which were no longer a concern at this inspection.

There were safe processes for storing, administering and returning medicines. People received their medicines in a person-centred and appropriate way.

Staffing was sufficient and flexible to meet people’s needs. Staff demonstrated they understood people and had good knowledge about their personal histories, interests and preferences. Staff had received sufficient training to help them complete their roles effectively.

Appropriate checks were made to keep people safe and safety checks were made regularly on equipment and the environment. People had individual personal emergency evacuation plans (PEEPs) that staff could follow to ensure people were supported to leave the service in the most appropriate way in the event of a fire.

Employment checks had been made to ensure staff were of good character and suitable for their roles.

Robust safeguarding guidance and contact information was available for staff to refer to should they need to raise concerns about people’s safety. Staff had good understanding about their responsibilities in relation to this. The provider audited safeguarding processes to ensure they remained robust.

The registered manager demonstrated a clear understanding of the process that must be followed if people were deemed to lack capacity to make their own decisions and the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. They ensured people’s rights were protected by meeting the requirements of the Act.

Regular monitoring and review of people’s health took place so action could be taken if further professional healthcare input was required.

People were supported to eat and drink and had choice around their meals.

Staff demonstrated caring attitudes towards people and spoke to them in a dignified and respectful way. Staff communicated with people in a person-centred and individual way to meet their own specific needs. There was a relaxed and open atmosphere; people were kept involved in all aspects of the service.

Care plans were meaningful and contained specific detail so staff could understand people better, care plans were a reflection of what happened in practice. People chose to participate in a variety of recreational activities inside and outside of the service.

Complaints were recorded and responded to effectively. There were systems in place outlining timescales of the complaints process and details of what actions the complainant should expect throughout the investigation process.

Robust systems for monitoring the service and identifying areas in need of improvement had been established since out last visit. The provider listened to people and their representatives and acted on feedback.

Inspection areas



Updated 27 October 2017

The service was safe.

People received their medicines safely.

There were enough staff to support people and meet their individual needs. Recruitment processes were in place to protect people.

Accidents and incidents were recorded and audited to identify patterns.

Safeguarding processes were in place to help protect people from harm.



Updated 27 October 2017

The service was effective.

People�s health needs were supported and responded to well.

The provider was meeting the requirements of The Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People were supported to make their own choices around their food and drink.

Staff had appropriate training to support people with their individual needs.



Updated 27 October 2017

The service was caring.

Staff spoke to people kindly and in a respectful and dignified way.

People were encouraged to maintain contact with their relatives.

People were given space when they indicated they wanted to be left alone although staff were close by should they require any help or support.

There was good rapport between people and staff.



Updated 27 October 2017

The service was responsive.

People benefited from care plans which were meaningful, informative and a reflection of how support was offered in practice.

People chose what activities they wished to do inside and outside of the service and staff were flexible to their individual needs.

There was a complaints procedure available for people should they be unhappy with any aspect of their care or treatment.



Updated 27 October 2017

The service was well-led.

Audits and reviews were made to check what areas in the service could improve. Action was taken from audits to improve the lives of people.

People�s feedback was sought and listened to. Following feedback, changes were made to improve the outcomes people experienced.

The registered manager had good oversight of the service and there was a clearly embedded culture, staff had good attitudes and understood their roles well.