Seaview Haven

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

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

This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The service was in breach of legal regulations in relation to good governance and staffing.

This service scored 54 (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 make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs

Our observations showed a person-centred approach was not always followed by staff. At times, staff spoke about people rather than including them in the discussion, and language used was not always person-centred. For example, a member of staff said 'she's an assist' meaning the person required support with their meals.

Care documentation varied in evidencing a person-centred approach. Some gave good details about people, their personalities and the support they needed. Other people’s care plans were inaccurate and had not been updated when their needs changed. People had a 'this is me' document, where health and personal care needs were recorded to support with hospital admissions.

Some relatives we spoke with said they had been involved in their family member’s care planning whilst others said they had not. One relative told us: “Not involved and not seen it”.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity. The service demonstrated a collaborative approach to care by working with external agencies to support peoples' needs. People were supported to stay with the same local GP if they wished to when they moved into the service. Nonetheless, one professional told us “We have found information collection and case history regarding people has been variable as some staff members do not appear very knowledgeable about the people and will often guess recommendations when they are not sure”. One person told us “I need my eyes tested and need a new glasses case as this one is tatty”.

It was noted relatives were not consistently involved in care planning or kept informed about the details of care arrangements. One relative told us: “I have not seen or been involved in the care plan”.

To promote continuity, the provider made efforts to assign consistent staff to specific floors.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats which were tailored to peoples’ individual needs. Though people’s communication needs were recorded, we could not be assured people received appropriate information which they could access and understand. For example, although a written and pictorial activities programme was displayed, the writing did not stand out which some people, particularly those living with dementia or visual impairments, may have found difficult to decipher and understand.The menu was not readily available to see, and pictures were not available to support people to make food or drink choices.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

The provider and manager told us they encouraged people, those acting on their behalf and staff to share feedback about the quality of the service provided, and what it was like to work at Seaview Haven. A member of staff told us: ‘They [staff] are concerned to raise issues in case of reprisals from the manager’.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. For example, one person told us “I can speak to the manager if I am not happy”. A further example, was a feedback suggestion box in the main entrance of the service, inviting staff and relatives to provide feedback and suggestions for improvement. However, where areas for improvement were communicated and recorded, there was no information detailing the actions being taken based on peoples’ feedback.

One relative told us: “We have raised the same issue with the manager for the last 18 months and we’ve been told they will look into it, but they’ve never come back to us to let us know the outcome”.

The provider did not always make sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. On inspection, we observed a person who repeatedly vocalised they needed to use the toilet. A staff member was present but did not acknowledge the person for a period of 20 minutes. Once acknowledged by the staff member, the person was informed they needed to wait until another staff member was present. Inspectors raised this observation with the provider immediately, who gave assurances this should not have happened, and they would investigate.

This demonstrated people who were unable to do those things for themselves were negatively affected by the provider’s staffing arrangements. This was confirmed by staff who told us they were often very busy and unable to spend the time they wanted supporting people with those care tasks.

People were supported in a building which was accessible to them. The care home had been purpose built and was suitable for people who had mobility support needs, sensory impairments and dementia. For example, the ground floor had a spacious layout and accessible facilities as well as clear and simple signage with non-slip flooring.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this. The provider had not always included people or discussed whether there were alternatives to the activities available at the service.

Whilst we saw some people were occupied with activities provided by staff, others were left for long periods of time to watch television with minimal staff interaction. We observed limited opportunity for some people to participate in meaningful social activities which met their needs. This was despite the service having 3 assigned staff members responsible for facilitating social activities. One person told us: “I’d like to get out a bit more, go out for a meal to Instow or Bude”.

Records did not always show how people, and their representatives where appropriate, were included in the development and review of their care plans. There was not always evidence to show they were consulted and listened to about their experiences to ensure their care plans were tailored and suited to their individual needs and preferences

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

People were supported to make informed choices about their needs and plan their future care while they had the capacity to do so. People’s decisions about what mattered to them, were delivered through personalised end of life care plans which were shared with others who may need to be informed. When people wanted to express their wishes about cardiopulmonary resuscitation, they were supported to do so and were able to change their mind if they wished.