Seaview

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.
 

This service scored 71 (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 shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.
There was a warm, friendly and welcoming atmosphere in the home. One relative described the caring culture within the home, “It goes from the top to the bottom. The care is top notch!”

The registered manager described the culture as “caring and family-like.” There was a common theme shared by all staff around togetherness, openness and honesty. The registered manager and clinical lead were proud of their care team describing how they were committed and work so hard for the people they support.
Staff and leaders wanted to learn, improve and were committed to deliver the best outcomes for people in a person-centred way. Staff told us everything they did in the home was for the benefit of the people they cared for and supported.
We observed caring interactions during our visits and no evidence of any factors suggestive of a closed culture within the home.

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.
The registered manager and clinical lead were visible, involved and supportive of their staff. They had a good understanding of the principles of ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ which ensured autistic people or people with a learning disability received a service which was safe, high quality and person-centred.

Staff reported the registered manager and clinical lead to be caring, supportive and hands-on. This had a positive impact on staff morale and wellbeing. We observed the registered manager and clinical lead getting involved in meal service, interacting warmly with people and supporting staff with care activities.

Healthcare professionals commented on the strength and quality of the clinical lead. They described how they had confidence and assurance of their abilities to meet the needs of the people living in the home. One person told us, “[The clinical lead] fills me with confidence because they have a good understanding of my condition."
 

Staff felt they could speak up and that their voice would be heard.
There were policies to inform and support staff should they want to speak up or escalate concerns by way of whistleblowing. The registered manager and clinical lead had an open-door policy, and staff were comfortable and confident to raise concerns, contributing to an open and transparent culture. Staff described their managers as, “approachable” and how they always listen to things they consider important.
 

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.
Leaders welcomed input from staff regarding all aspects of the service to improve workforce relations. Staff completed training in key areas to reinforce good working practices. Staff commented if they observed any practices or treatment of people or colleagues which were unfair, discriminatory or offensive, they would escalate this immediately.
Staff were able to work flexibly to support personal circumstances, and reasonable adjustments were made to support staff in the workplace.
 

The provider did not always demonstrate effective governance processes.
They did not always identify or act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes.
Although audits had been completed, these were not completely effective. For example, we found inconsistent use of the dependency tool in people’s care plans and how this was used to inform safe staffing. We identified improvements were needed to fluid recording and daily notes. There were some safety issues in the home which had not been identified, and the quality lead attended the home infrequently.
However, the provider was responsive to our observations and feedback. The provider put an action plan in place immediately following our first visit and many of the actions had been addressed and were noted on our second visit.
The registered manager did not have any formal supervisions which would provide an opportunity for personal reflection, development and feedback.
 

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.
There were effective and well-established links with relevant professionals and referral pathways to support continuity and joined-up working. Staff shared information appropriately which minimised unnecessary repetition for people who move between services.
The home had some community links within their local area and staff were looking at ways to strengthen these links so people could maintain connections with people and places of importance to them.
 

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system.
Whilst there were some missed opportunities to improve outcomes for people, the provider responded positively and proactively in response to complaints, concerns and our feedback.
There was evidence of actions taken, new procedures implemented and updated staff training following untoward events. This learning had brought improvements to the home.
The provider made some very positive changes following our first visit. This included training staff on person-centred record keeping, safety improvements and an upgrade to the hydration station.
The provider used assistive technology to support people and adapted other equipment to find innovative solutions for people. The clever use of a ‘video monitor’ to support someone living with anxiety had very positive outcomes for the person.