Sea Bank House

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.

Staff spoken with were providing person centred care based on what was important to the individual. One staff member said, “We are a small place, and we know each other so well, so we are able to provide personal care which fits each individual’s needs.”

Staff had good knowledge about people’s likes and dislikes and communication needs if people had any difficulty. Care assessments were holistic to ensure all parts of people’s health and social wellbeing and written in a person-centred way.

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

Staff understood the importance of working closely with a range of other agencies. We saw this included access to G.P, district nurses, chiropodists, dentist and speech and language therapy.

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

We observed people were supported in a way that met their needs when communicating with others. For example, 1 person said, “I struggle a bit hearing so staff are so patient and able to understand me it makes for making me feel so much better we can understand each other without rushing.” Care records contained information and guidance on how best to communicate with people on an individual basis.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Information on how people could share their views was available. For example, surveys were undertaken and regular formal and informal meetings so opinions and suggestions could be shared to improve the home. A relative said, “We have a way to discuss things with the manager.”

There was a complaints procedure which was accessible to people and those who were important to them. One person said, “I know who to speak to if I had an issue.”

The provider/registered manager ensured people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. For example, referrals to specialist services such as speech therapy, district nurses and doctors were completed straight away if there was a change in people’s circumstances.

Premises were accessible. Mobility aids had been installed in bathrooms and there was specialist shower equipment to support people who had challenges with mobility.

Staff and leaders were innovative in how they listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes.

People were empowered by staff to give their views and understand their rights, including their rights to equality and their human rights. Leaders and staff were alert to discrimination and inequality that could disadvantage people living at Sea Bank House and would take action when needed.

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

The registered manager told us they were supporting people receiving end of life care, however staff had received training in this so people could be supported effectively. A relative said, “I cannot praise the staff enough the way they look after my [relative]. They know what to do and provide the correct care at this sad time.”

Documentation we looked at contained individual’s preferences on their life wishes so that family and friends were aware of decisions they had made.