Archived: Seabreezes Residential Home

When we visited, eleven people were living in the home. There was no registered manager in post. The manager, who had been in post since May 2013, was not available. We spoke with the deputy manager and members of staff on duty as well as people using the service and some of their relatives.

People we spoke with said they were very happy living in the home and felt well cared for by staff. One person told us, 'They're very good, they look after me well.' Staff were responsive to people's needs and cared for them in an individual way.

We saw medicines were kept securely and administered to people at the right time.

We saw the home was not appropriately maintained in all areas. For example the call bell system was not working effectively and a bath hoist which was still being used had not been serviced since 2010.

Some of the equipment in the home was inadequate or needed replacing. For example towels were frayed and there was inadequate sheets and office equipment.

People were cared for by staff who had undergone thorough employment checks prior to being employed in the home.

Although people told us they felt well cared for, they also felt there were not enough staff on duty at times to care for them. One person told us, 'There aren't enough of them (staff). They can't perform miracles.' We found there were not enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to always meet people's needs.

People told us they felt the staff knew how to care for them. Staff informed us they felt very well supported by the manager of the home although training courses were not always available to them.

We found the provider did not have adequate systems and processes in place to identify the risks of inappropriate or unsafe care in the home. This included health and safety and infection control.

Record keeping in the home had improved.

People told us they felt well cared for and staff were kind to them. We found staff did not talk with people very much when they were sitting in the lounge and staff sometimes used unsafe techniques when moving and handling people.

People said the food was good and they had plenty to eat and drink. One person told us, 'The food's brilliant.' We saw menus were changed on a rotational basis every four weeks and 'themed days' had been introduced, for example Mexican.

Medicines were administered to people by staff who had received appropriate training. However we found they were not always managed safely in order to protect people from harm and the drug cupboard contained inappropriate items.

Recruitment and selection processes were not robust. We found personnel files did not always contain evidence of the required pre-employment checks in order to keep people safe.

Some of the care records we looked at did not protect people from the risk of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment. Other records we asked to see were not always available.