You are here

Seale Pastures House Requires improvement

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 9 March 2018

The inspection took place on 22 January 2018 and was unannounced. Seale Pastures is a care home that provides accommodation with personal care and is registered to accommodate 40 people. The service provides support to older people who may be living with dementia. The accommodation at Seale Pastures is on the ground and first floor and there are three lounge areas and a dining room for people to use. A new small private lounge was being completed and the garden area was being landscaped with raised beds and a new seating area. The home is in a rural location and has a car park for visitors to use. There are no public facilities or public transport services within easy reach of the home.

Seale Pastures is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. At the time of the inspection there were 33 people using the service.

The service had a manager who had submitted their application to register with us. 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.

Seale Pastures was last inspected on 28 April 2016 and the service was rated as Good. On this inspection we found the service was now rated as Requires Improvement. This is the first time the service has been rated Requires Improvement. This was because people were not always protected from harm as staff had not always recognised where people may have been harmed and what actions to take to keep people safe. Medicines were not always managed safely; safe systems had not been developed to ensure people received their medicines as prescribed in case of any system failure of the electronic medicines system. Improvements were needed with how information was accessible for people.

We also found people were not always supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives as some applications to restrict people of their liberty had been made without ensuring that the person did not have the capacity to make this choice. The provider had identified that improvements were needed and further time and support was needed to implement these changes. We have made a recommendation about involving people in decisions about their care.

People felt the staff and manager were caring and treated them with respect and dignity. Staff understood the importance of treating people with kindness and compassion and enjoyed spending time with people. The staff knew people well and respected their privacy and dignity. People were confident that staff supported them in the way they wanted.

People received support from health care professionals where they needed this to keep well. Staff supported people to attend healthcare appointments and liaised with their GP and other healthcare professionals as required to meet people’s needs. People were happy with the standards of hygiene in the service.

People were supported to eat and drink and there was a choice of foods available. Specialist diets were catered for and alternative meals could be provided upon request. People received support to remain independent at meal times and where they needed assistance, this was done in a caring and supportive way.

People knew how to make complaints. They were confident that the staff and the new manager would respond to any concern and they could approach them at any time. Complaints were managed in line with the provider’s complaints procedure and people were informed of any investigation and actions.

We found breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 9 March 2018

The service was not always safe.

Safe systems were not in place to ensure people received their medicines safely. Staff had not always identified where people may have been harmed and taken action to report this. Infection control standards were followed by staff to reduce the risk of infection. There were sufficient staff working in the service who had been safely recruited to enable them to work with people.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 9 March 2018

The service was not always effective.

Improvements were needed as unnecessary restrictions were placed on people who had capacity to make their own decisions. Staff were gaining the skills and knowledge to meet people’s care and support needs. People had a choice of food and drink which met their nutritional needs, and were helped to receive all the healthcare attention they needed.

Caring

Good

Updated 9 March 2018

The service was caring.

The staff were caring and kind and ensured that people’s right to privacy was respected and their dignity was promoted. People were able to choose how to spend their time and decisions were respected. Confidential information was kept private.

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 9 March 2018

The service was not always responsive.

People were not always offered sufficient opportunities to pursue their hobbies and interests and do the activities they enjoyed. People had been consulted about the assistance they wanted to receive, although their care records did not always reflect this. There was a system to resolve complaints.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 9 March 2018

The service was not always well led.

Quality checks were now being carried out although these were not always effective. The manager had completed their application with us to become registered as required. People and their relatives had been consulted about the development of the service. The registered person had told us about significant events that had occurred in the service. Staff were being encouraged to speak out about the quality of the service and felt listened to.