You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 22 May 2018

This inspection took place on 16 and 26 April 2018. Seabrooke Manor is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Seabrooke Manor is a 120 bed care home providing residential and nursing care. The service is divided into four units. Norman House and Belgae House provide nursing and residential care. Saxon House provides residential dementia care and Roman House provides nursing dementia care. On the day of our visit there were 110 people living at Seabrook Manor.

The service had recently changed providers and this was the first inspection since the new provider took over.

There was a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are 'registered persons'. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Staff were knowledgeable about safeguarding and knew how to identify and raise safeguarding concerns to keep people safe. Risks associated with people's care and support had been assessed.

People received support from trained staff who were skilled and knowledgeable in meeting their needs. Staff received on-going training whilst working for the provider. Effective recruitment practices were followed to help ensure all staff were fit, able and qualified to do their jobs. Staffing levels were regularly reviewed depending on the needs of people who used the service.

There was a policy and procedures about safe administration of medicines. People were supported to take their medicines in the way they wanted.

People’s needs were assessed and care and support was planned and delivered in line with their individual care needs. People or their representatives had been involved in writing their care plans. Staff understood their responsibly to help people maintain their health and wellbeing. People were supported to have a healthy and nutritious diet.

Staff understood when and how to support people’s best interest if they lacked capacity to make certain decisions about their care. They had received training about the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Staff were knowledgeable about the people they cared for. They were treated them with kindness and respect and encouraged people to do as much for themselves as possible.

Staff took time to listen and interact with people so they received the care and support they needed. They encouraged people to make choices about their care and their views were taken into account.

People were involved in activities which they had chosen to help ensure they were not socially isolated.

The provider had a complaints policy. People and their relatives were comfortable to raise any concerns with the management team or with a member of staff if something was wrong.

There was a system in place to enable people, relatives, staff and other professionals to share their views about the service provided. There were also systems to audit and identify what improvements needed to be made.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 22 May 2018

People were protected against the risks of abuse as staff were clear of their responsibilities to protect people from harm. Staff understood what abuse was and knew how to report it.

Risks to people’s individual health and wellbeing were identified and care was planned to minimise the risks.

The provider had effective recruitment and selection processes in place. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs.

People who used the service received their medicines as prescribed by their doctors.

There were systems in place for the monitoring and prevention of infection.

Effective

Good

Updated 22 May 2018

The service was effective. People’s needs were assessed before they started to use the service.

Staff were trained and supported to enable them to meet people’s individual needs.

Staff understood their responsibilities in relation to consent and supporting people to make decisions. Where people did not have the capacity to consent, the staff acted in accordance with legal requirements.

People’s dietary needs were taken into account and their nutritional needs were monitored appropriately.

People were supported to maintain good health and to access health care services and professionals when they needed them.

Caring

Good

Updated 22 May 2018

The service was caring. People were treated with dignity and respect and staff were kind and respectful to them. Staff knew people well and interacted with them in a professional manner.

People who used the service and their representatives were involved in planning and making decisions about the care and support provided.

People were able to make choices about their care and their views were taken into account. Staff supported people to maintain their independence where possible. They knew about people’s interests and preferences.

Responsive

Good

Updated 22 May 2018

The service was responsive. People received care and support that met their needs and took account of their personal circumstances.

People were encouraged to pursue their hobbies and interests. They were supported to engage in meaningful activities of their choice.

There was a system in place to tell people and their representatives on how to make a complaint. Where concerns had been raised the registered manager had taken appropriate action to resolve them.

People’s last wishes upon death were recorded.

Well-led

Good

Updated 22 May 2018

The service was well led. People and their relatives felt the service was managed well. They felt confident they could contact the registered manager at any time and were satisfied with the response they received.

Staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities and had access to policies and procedures to inform and guide them.

There were audits and systems in place to monitor the quality of care people received and to drive improvements.