Seaview Haven

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement.

This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

The service was in breach of legal regulations in relation to safe care and treatment.

This service scored 50 (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 did not always respect people’s privacy and dignity.

The way in which some staff spoke about people was not always appropriate or respectful. For example, one person told us: “I have heard staff discussing other people’s care and support needs in the corridor outside their bedroom without discretion or respect”.

Staff interaction was kind and caring when they engaged with people, and they used eye contact and pleasant tone of voice when speaking with people. However, staff appeared focused on tasks and often missed basic interactions like acknowledging people as they passed them, either in their own rooms or communal areas. We observed a member of staff calling out across the lounge/dining area very intimate details about a person they were supporting in the toilet. This was not picked up on by senior staff in the vicinity.

Some improvements were needed to ensure people received dignified personal care. We saw examples of people who had not been supported to have their hair or fingernails cleaned or assisted to freshen up after meals.

However, relatives were generally complimentary of staff, describing them as kind, caring and responsive.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences.

They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

People’s care plans contained information about their choices and preferences; there was detail about their lives before they moved into the service.

There was information about people’s previous hobbies and interests.

However, the activities were not consistently designed to meet individual’s needs and preferences and there was not the opportunity for people to go out and about and spend their time how they wished. Some people were not interested in the activities offered and told us they were boring, and we observed another person with their hands on the window stating, “I want to go out for a walk, instead of looking out these windows”.

One relative told us: “There were 3 staff members in the room with 4 residents, they were on their phones, ignoring the residents, the residents were just sat there staring into space”.

There were activities in the large main communal lounge during our inspection, people were offered the opportunity to help staff with activities such as preparing the bingo table.

The provider promoted people’s independence, dignity and privacy but did not always promote and afford people choice. Some people found multiple choice options overwhelming. Staff told us they understood people’s rights and choices and were able to tell us how they tried to include people in decisions in a person centred manner. However, this did not always happen in practice. Observations during our assessment demonstrated people were not routinely offered choices and improvements were required. For example, during morning and afternoon refreshments, people were not always offered a choice of drinks or given the choice to sit at the dining table to have their meal.

People received support with their personal care in private and staff were discreet when asking people if they required support to have their comfort needs met. People were supported to maintain relationships which were important to them, including family members and friends.

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

We observed one person walking around within the communal area who had been left too long without continence support. We spoke to staff to alert them to this. No harm came to this person.

Staff failed to provide timely assistance to a person who requested to go to the toilet. This person was extremely distressed when staff supported them. One relative told us: “A person kept standing up and asking for the toilet. My niece had to intervene and stop them from getting up and then she went to find a member of staff. They then radioed for someone once my niece had highlighted it to them”.

However, we also observed staff being kind, caring and offering compassionate care and support. People appeared relaxed in staff presence, and we observed spontaneous conversations taking place.

The provider did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

We reviewed a recent anonymous staff survey feedback document which evidenced 23 out of approximately 90 staff had responded. The results of the survey indicated staff felt supported by the manager. However, some staff told us they did not feel supported within their role. Comments from staff included, "I raised things, but nothing gets done about it" and "I don’t feel the manager listens to me." Records showed staff did not always receive regular supervision meetings. Staff also told us staff meetings were arranged and then cancelled at short notice reducing opportunities for staff to give feedback or discuss any concerns they may have.