Seaview Nursing Home

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Requires Improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained Requires Improvement. This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

This service scored 61 (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 did not have a clear shared vision, strategy and culture which was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, and engagement. They did not always understand the challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

The provider and new registered manager had been working with staff to build their confidence and ensure they had a clear shared vision, strategy and culture that was fully embedded across the service.

The management team had made significant progress in addressing the poor culture that had existed and were still actively working to create a more open, person-centred environment.

Staff, people and professionals consistently described improvements in culture, communication and morale since the appointment of the registered manager. Relationships had improved and benefitted the people who lived in Seaview Nursing Home.

Staff told us they felt more supported and reported a greater understanding of people's needs, preferences and life histories. The management team had a range of systems in place to improve staff engagement, including regular supervision, staff meetings, manager walkarounds and opportunities for staff to contribute ideas for improvement. Health professionals had been invited into the service to provide bite size training sessions to improve staff knowledge and improve working relationships. Feedback from health professionals said this had really benefitted their communication with staff and reduced inappropriate calls.

People and relatives were positive about the registered manager, describing them as approachable and responsive. Although improvements were evident, the provider and registered manager acknowledged further work was required to ensure these cultural changes were consistently embedded and sustained across all areas of the service.

The management team had made significant improvements in leadership since the last inspection. The registered manager and deputy manager were highly visible within the service, and this was viewed positively by people, staff and external professionals. Staff and visitors consistently described the registered manager as approachable, supportive and willing to listen.

However, leadership arrangements were not fully embedded or fully effective. The delegated oversight of building shortfalls, cleanliness and certain clinical audits for example air mattresses had not been identified. While the manager demonstrated the qualities of a capable and compassionate leader, leadership systems were not yet consistently effective at all levels and further work was required to embed sustainable improvements.

The registered manager had undertaken a thorough review of the service and implemented a range of measures to improve staff engagement, care quality and organisational culture. They demonstrated an understanding of the challenges facing the service and had developed clear improvement plans. There had been many safeguarding’s in progress and they had worked alongside the Local Authority safeguarding teams to resolve and drive improvement.

Staff said there was an improved morale, communication and support and described leadership as more visible than previously.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

There were now systems and processes in place to encourage and respond to feedback from people using the service, staff and external stakeholders. The previous inspection had identified a closed culture where staff and people felt they could not speak up. The registered manager had worked hard to promote an atmosphere where people and staff felt able to speak up. There were resident’s visitors and staff meetings and surveys completed. Healthcare professionals could feedback in person or via an electronic form.

Staff felt more confident about raising any ideas and concerns to the provider and management team. Team meetings and supervisions were used to share ideas and suggestions as well as learning from any concerns or incidents. Staff surveys were also offered to allow staff to feedback their views on their employment.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

All staff told us they had received opportunities to attend further training and develop their knowledge and careers.

The registered manager told us staff were encouraged to contribute to the service development through regular staff meetings and supervisions. Staff said they felt valued and supported in their roles and no staff expressed any concerns regarding equality and inclusion. Staff received training on communicating effectively and diversity and equality. This supported staff to understand and uphold inclusive practices in both care delivery and in the workplace.

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. However, governance systems were not always operating effectively as they did not identify the shortfalls found within this assessment. Some improvements had been made but further development was required to ensure safe governance and oversight of the service.. For example, the need to expediate necessary improvements to the environment. Such as essential repairs to the communal bathrooms and showers and the overall upgrade of the service.

It was acknowledged that some audits and overviews were slightly behind, for example, peoples’ air mattress settings had not been updated with August weights and one person’s mattress setting was for another person and was incorrect by 10kgs. This was updated during the assessment process and all air mattresses checked.
The service followed robust arrangements for the confidentiality of data, records and data management systems.

The staff were positive about the management team and could see improvements in the home.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.

Relationships with health professionals involved with care delivery at Seaview Nursing Home have improved over the past 8 months. Health professionals told us that they now have a good relationship with the service and staff work with them in a professional and knowledgeable way. One told us, “We are really pleased to confirm that improvements with staff have made it easier to work alongside them. They are responsive to advice and have taken learning forward.”
The registered manager and staff worked closely with external professionals and told us they would be confident to contact someone directly without hesitation if they needed to.
The registered manager had close links with the local authority and utilised any additional training opportunities when they were offered and felt very supported.

The registered manager spoke proactively about the need for continuous learning to drive improvements for the service. They shared their plans to continue improving the service. However, their systems and processes were not yet fully embedded to effectively support these plans. For example, when we discussed the impact of the poor environment, there was not a robust plan in place with intended timescales, and whilst incidents and accidents were discussed, lessons learnt were not always documented and taken forward effectively. Whilst we did identify shortfalls during this assessment, the provider was responsive and took action to address key areas of improvement.