Seaview

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.
At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.
 

This service scored 66 (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 had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

The provider kept records of accidents and incidents. These were reviewed to identify opportunities for learning. New procedures were implemented by the provider in response to untoward events demonstrating their willingness to make changes and minimise future risk.
 

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

Staff completed a thorough assessment of people’s needs before they moved into their new home. This ensured they could safely meet people’s needs and coordinate a safe transition into the service.

The provider had embedded referral pathways and shared information about people to assist with appointments, reviews and movement between services.
 

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect.

People reported feeling safe in the home. One person told us, “I am definitely safe, staff can’t do enough for me.”

Safeguarding concerns were recorded, investigated, information was appropriately shared with partners and actions were taken to protect people from avoidable harm. Where safeguarding incidents had occurred, staff responded immediately and proportionately to ensure people were protected from further incidents and recurrence.

Staff completed safeguarding training and confirmed their understand of what constituted unacceptable care and how to escalate any concerns.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). In care services, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and whether proper legal authorisations were in place when needed to deprive a person of their liberty.

DoLS information was up to date and aligned with care plan entries. We saw evidence of applications, renewals and conditions being monitored. There was no evidence of any unlawful restrictions applied to people’s rights and freedoms.
 

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe and supportive.

People had risks assessed and managed appropriately. Risk assessments were completed thoroughly, regularly reviewed and used by staff to support people’s safety. Some risk assessments included input and guidance from specialist healthcare professionals.

One relative told us, “I am fully involved and attend all the review meetings where we discuss risks and challenges."
 

The provider did not always detect and control potential risks in the care environment. They did not always make sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

There were some environmental risks identified during the first visit which included unrestricted windows, accessible stairs, poor lighting on stairwells and access to staff only areas which may pose a risk to some people. A healthcare professional also reported a concern regarding the loss of and lack of some equipment to improve people’s safety.

The issues observed during the first visit were addressed by the registered manager before our second visit. The provider carried out health and safety checks to ensure hazards were identified; actions were taken to minimise risk and the home was safe for people and staff.
 

The provider did not assure us there were enough staff at all times.

The provider completed a dependency assessment of people’s needs. However, this was not always completed accurately and was not used to inform staffing requirements.

People reported having to wait for their call bells to be answered and care needs to be met on occasions. People also reported limited time outdoors and a lack of meaningful activity. However, we did not find any links between staffing, reported incidents and unsafe care.

Recruitment checks were completed and new staff received a structured induction. All staff completed training to ensure people’s needs were safely met. There was a well-coordinated supervision and appraisal programme. Agency staff profiles were reviewed and local inductions completed.
 

The provider did not always assess or manage the risk of infection. They did not always detect and control the risk of it spreading or share concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

The provider had cleaning schedules which were thoroughly completed. However, carpet flooring was heavily stained throughout and there was some wear and tear to furnishings which may limit adequate cleaning and disinfection.

Staff used PPE appropriately and were observed to wash their hands in-between care tasks. Staff disposed of waste appropriately. However, we did not observe any offer of handwashing to people prior to or after their meals and the external bins and bin storage area was unlocked and accessible.
On our first visit, the provider confirmed they had not completed a recent infection control audit. However, at our second visit, the clinical lead shared their new infection control audit which had been completed in-between our visits.
 

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

Medicines were safely stored and administered by competent staff. All medicine related documentation was completed thoroughly. Where people required their medicines covertly, this had been agreed by the person’s GP and the pharmacist.

Staff had written medicine specific care plans to support people’s safety. Though some of these care plans required more detail.