Seaview

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 68 (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.
Each person had an individual plan of care which detailed their care and support needs. This detailed things that were important to them although the detail around people’s longer-term aspirations could be better recorded. There was evidence of the care plan being reviewed with people to ensure it remained reflective of their current care needs.
People and their relatives described how staff supported them in a kind, caring and person-centred way.
The provider had completed training with staff, in between our first and second visit, to share best practice around person-centred record keeping standards. The service was working to embed these improvements to better demonstrate their person-centred approach to care.
Some people expressed frustration at the lack of meaningful person-centred activity, and this was observed during our visits. A healthcare professional told us they had attended the home when there had been activities taking place. However, they were not assured these were coordinated or delivered in a person-centred manner.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. This included the needs of those who people may have difficulty accessing care services and those who may experience differing care standards.
Care was coordinated and supported by health and social care professionals with whom staff worked closely with to ensure consistency and continuity. There were well established links and referral pathways to support people.
A healthcare professional told us, “Staff ring for advice so any problem can be dealt with quickly to avoid delays."
 

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.
People had access to an information guide presented in a folder in each person’s room. This contained information about the provider, the service, staff and the local community. There was also information displayed at various places throughout the home.
The service had systems in place to meet the Accessible Information Standard, including easy-read and large print documents. Staff used adaptive technology to support people who had difficulties in expressing their needs.
 

Staff involved people in decisions about their care and there was evidence in care plans where people and relatives had attended reviews.
The provider undertook an annual survey for people to provide feedback about the service. The feedback was used to identify areas for improvement.
However, the provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas on a more frequent basis. On our first visit, we were told there was no regular resident and relative meetings held. This limited the opportunity for people to speak up and contribute to the service.
At our second visit, we were informed the provider had held engagement meetings with people and a person had agreed to act as a ‘Resident Ambassador’. This demonstrated a positive and proactive response by the provider to ensure people were listened to and involved.
People had access to the complaints policy. Relatives told us they knew how to complain and were comfortable to do so if necessary. Records showed the provider dealt with concerns appropriately.
 

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support, and treatment they needed when they needed it. Care records showed people had support from a range of health professionals. Relatives told us they were involved in decisions about people’s care, and staff respected people’s choices and preferences.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.
Care plans included information around people’s backgrounds and things which were important to them. However, daily records did not always demonstrate or accurately reflect the care people received.
Most people chose to remain in their rooms as there was limited incentive to attend the shared lounge and conservatory. The displayed activity programme was not followed and people missed out on meaningful social interaction, engagement and stimulation.
People did not get to fully enjoy the outdoor experience due to limited safe external spaces and staff availability to support people to maintain those community links.
 

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.
Staff discussed future care and end of life plans sensitively with people and their preferences were recorded in their care plan. Some people had emergency healthcare plans (EHCP) and do not resuscitate orders (DNACPR), and these were incorporated into people’s care records.
Staff respected people’s wishes when they chose not to discuss this aspect of their care.
The service had good links with palliative care and hospice services to support people at the end of their life.
Staff had supported people and their families to decorate their rooms to celebrate their lives. They had provided space to allow family members (including their children) to stay and be together. Staff had used supportive technology to provide reassurance to people who were anxious about being alone. The sensitivity shown by staff at a difficult time for people and their families ensured the care people received at the end of their lives was thoughtful and compassionate.
People had supported each other following a bereavement which had seen new friendships and bonds formed in the home. This reinforced a caring culture throughout the home.