You are here

Reports


Inspection carried out on 28 August 2019

During a routine inspection

About the service

Seahaven is a residential care home providing personal care to 17 people who have a learning disability and or autism.

The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.

The service was a large home, bigger than most domestic style properties. It was registered for the support of up to 19 people. This is larger than current best practice guidance. However. the size of the service having a negative impact on people was mitigated. The service was delivered in two separate houses. One house accommodated five people and 12 people lived in the other when we inspected. The buildings fitting into the residential area and was surrounded by other large domestic homes of a similar size. There were no identifying signs, intercom, cameras, industrial bins or anything else outside to indicate it was a care home. Staff did not wear anything which suggested they were care staff when coming and going with people.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Feedback from people, relatives and a health and social care professional was consistently positive about the service and staff. People told us they were happy with the report they received, and relatives said, “The staff are very professional”, and “They are very good and are really caring.”

People continued to be supported by staff who knew how to help them remain safe. They were protected from abuse and risks to their health and safety were well managed. Medicines were well managed, and people received these on time and as prescribed.

Staff continued to be recruited safely to make sure they were suitable to work with vulnerable people. Staff were well supported and supervised and had the skills and training they needed to support people.

People’s needs continued to be assessed in a holistic way. These assessments were used to develop support plans which included people’s preferences and goals.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People were supported to access healthcare services including dental care when they needed to do so and there was information for people to take with them if they needed to be admitted to hospital. This information would assist hospital staff to support people and communicate with them.

Staff were caring, and people were treated with kindness. Staff knew people well and used their knowledge to assist people to communicate and express their views about their care and support. When people needed emotional support, this was provided. Staff respected people’s privacy and people were treated in a dignified manner.

People had keyworkers who led on their support and gave people the opportunity to feedback on their support and any concerns. People and their relatives knew how to complain if they choose to do so and were able to speak to the registered manager and deputy manager when they wanted to.

The service applied the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These ensure people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes which include control, choice and independence.

The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence a

Inspection carried out on 9 December 2016

During a routine inspection

This inspection was carried out on the 9 December 2016 and was unannounced.

Seahaven is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 19 people. The service is split over two adjacent houses, with an inter-connecting door between them. One house was called Seahaven and the other house was called Kingsdown Lodge. There were five people living at Kingsdown Lodge and 11 people living at Seahaven. People living in both houses had a range of learning disabilities and mental health needs. Some people were living with autism and some people required support with behaviours that challenged.

The service was located in a rural location, overlooking the sea. Each house had its own kitchen and lounge areas. People were able to move between the two houses whenever they wished, to visit their friends and staff. Each person had their own bedroom.

The service had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who is 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. The registered manager also managed a smaller service for three people in Deal, Kent and shared their time between the two services.

Some people’s care plans and risk assessments required updating. The registered manager had already identified this and there was a plan in place to ensure this happened as soon as possible. When people’s care plans and risk assessments had been updated they were detailed and accurate. People told us that they were supported by the same staff, who knew them well and so they always received the support they needed.

Detailed assessments were carried out before people moved into the service. One person had recently moved in and they had visited the service and met staff several times so they were able to get to know everyone.

There were enough staff to keep people safe. Staff were checked before they started working with people to ensure they were of good character and had the necessary skills and experience to support people effectively.

People kept their medicines in a locked safe in their bedrooms and were supported to be as independent as possible when taking their medicines.

People were relaxed in the company of staff and their relatives told us that staff were kind and caring. Staff knew people well and offered people reassurance and support throughout our inspection. People were treated with dignity and respect. Some people needed support with their communication so staff used signs and symbols to help them make their needs known.

The registered manager documented and investigated any complaints.

People and staff told us they thought the service was well led. Staff told us they were well supported by the registered manager and there was an open and inclusive ethos within the service.

Staff completed incident forms when any accident or incident occurred. Regular health and safety checks were undertaken to ensure the environment was safe and equipment worked as required. Regular fire drills were completed.

Staff knew how to recognise and respond to abuse. The registered manager was aware of their responsibilities regarding safeguarding and staff were confident the registered manager would act if any concerns were reported to them.

Staff had an induction and the training needed to carry out their roles. All staff had received training in how to manage people’s behaviours safely, and how to prevent behaviours from occurring. Staff met regularly with their line manager to discuss their training and development needs.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care services. These safeguards protect the rights of people using services by ensuring that if there were any restrictions to their freedom and liber

Inspection carried out on 23 June 2014

During a routine inspection

Our inspection team was made up of one inspector and a specialist clinical advisor. We spoke with some of the people who used the service, the manager, deputy manager and care staff. We spent time with people who had communication difficulties and observed the interactions between people and staff during the day. We considered our inspection findings to answer questions we always ask: Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service well-led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people who used the service, their relatives, the staff supporting them and from looking at records. We found overall that action had been taken and improvements had been made by management and staff since our last inspection visit.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

The service was safe because the manager had a good understanding of the risks and needs of the people using the service and had put appropriate measures in place. Risk assessments had been completed to make sure staff knew how best to support people to minimise potential risks to their wellbeing. People were treated with respect and dignity by the staff. Safeguarding procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported. People told us that they felt safe. One person said, �My life has improved since I�ve lived here. When I�m having a bad day the staff support me. They listen to me and give me time.� People were protected from infection because the provider had maintained appropriate standards of hygiene and had good systems in place to monitor and assess the quality of service.

Is the service effective?

The service was effective. People�s health and care needs were assessed with them and/or their representatives. Specialists including psychologists and speech and language therapists had been involved in people�s care and to give staff training and advice. Staff had received the training they needed and there was an ongoing training programme to make sure staff had the skills they needed to support people appropriately.

Is the service caring?

The service was caring. Staff spent time with people and assisted them to do what they wanted. Staff had got to know the people using the service well and had developed ways to communicate with them. When people needed support this was given respectfully and in a relaxed way. Staff occupied people with activities and encouraged people to learn new skills.

Is the service responsive?

The service was responsive. People were given choices and staff were responsive to their needs. Sometimes people needed support with their behaviour and there were plans and systems in place to respond to this. The service had a development plan that addressed all areas of improvement needed and they had been responsive to concerns raised at the last inspection.

Is the service well-led?

The service was well-led. The service had a manager who was experienced in working with people with learning disabilities and had been registered as a manager with the Commission at a previous employment. There were systems in place to provide on-going monitoring of the home. This included checks for the environment, health and safety, fire safety and staff training needs. The staff confirmed that they had individual supervision and staff meetings. This enabled them to share ideas and concerns.

Inspection carried out on 11 September 2013

During an inspection in response to concerns

We visited Beach House due to concerns that had been raised about the service and in particular with regard to an activity that one of the people who lived at the service had been facilitated to be involved in.

Prior to the visit we contacted other agencies including environmental health, social services and the police regarding the activity that had been reported to us. We were concerned that the activity was not appropriate for this service and that people were at risk of acquiring an infection should it continue. We made an unannounced visit to the service to check that this activity had ceased; which it had six days prior to our visit. People told us that there had been a bad smell for a few days when the activity was being carried out but that it had gone since the activity had ceased. One person told us �That smell has gone, it was bad.�

People had their needs assessed and risks were identified in most cases. However we found that risks relating to an activity had not been identified, assessed and managed to an appropriate standard to ensure the health, safety and welfare of people staff and visitors.

We found that laundry was being separated appropriately and that special waste was being handled, segregated, stored and disposed of suitably.

Concerns had been raised with regard to people not having curtains up in their bedroom and that lights did not work in some of the bedrooms. We found that the curtains were being replaced at the time of our visit and that the lights worked in the rooms that we checked, with the exception of one of the lights in an upstairs bathroom that was not working, this had been reported for replacement.

We saw that the systems that were in place to assess and monitor the service had not been used effectively to ensure people�s welfare and safety and that decisions about people�s care in regard to the activity had not been made by appropriate staff.

Inspection carried out on 29 June 2013

During a routine inspection

Some people living at the service were not able to talk to us directly about their experiences due to their complex needs, so we used a number of different methods to help us understand their experiences. We spoke with staff, spent time with people, read records, looked around the home and made observations of the care and support the people received. People were supported to engage in a variety of activities. People told us that the staff treated them with dignity and respect.

We saw that people were offered choices and their independence was promoted. We saw some positive interactions between staff and the people who live at the service. Staff assisted people in a professional, yet warm manner and explained what they were doing when they supported them.

People we spoke with told us that they liked living in the home and that staff were friendly and caring. We saw that people looked relaxed. The people we spoke with told us that they were satisfied with the care and support received. One person said "I feel safe here, I am very comfortable". Another said "The staff are kind and always find time to chat with me".

Reports under our old system of regulation (including those from before CQC was created)