Updated 8 September 2026
Our view of the service
About the service
Seaford Head Retirement Home is residential care home providing accommodation and personal care support for up to 16 people. Support was provided across 3 floors which were accessible via the use of stair lift. The home had an enclosed communal garden which people were free to use as they wished. At the time of inspection there were 15 people living at the service.
Who the service is for
This service supports older people living with dementia and multiple needs.
Key findings
We visited the home on 29 September and 1 October 2026. This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard. Instead, our findings focus on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.
People told us that they felt safe living at the home and relatives spoke positively about the care and support that was provided. Staff told us how accidents and incidents were reported. Systems were in place to investigate incidents with the registered manager having oversight to ensure that timely and appropriate actions were taken to minimise risk and maintain people’s safety. For example, a monthly falls audit was completed to identify any patterns or emerging themes that may be influencing people’s ability to mobilise safely. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of how to keep people safe, and clear safeguarding procedures were in place.
People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. DoLS authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions, they had choice, control, and freedom over their lives. However, the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) were not always followed. Records relating to mental capacity assessments did not consistently evidence that best practice principles around decision-making had been followed.
People were encouraged to make decisions about managing risk and how they wanted to live their lives. Staff supported people to understand potential risks and worked with them to identify practical ways to reduce these, whilst avoiding unnecessary restrictions. This enabled people to make choices and to continue to do the things that were important to them. Where additional support was needed, staff provided this in a proportionate and proactive way that balanced people’s rights to take positive risk, whilst maintaining their safety and promoting wellbeing.
The environment was clean, well maintained and free from hazards. Appropriate safety checks were completed, and equipment was in good order. For example, auditing was in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service, with the registered manager taking responsibility for key areas.
Staffing levels were maintained with no recent reliance on agency staff. People benefitted from a consistent staff team who knew them well and understood their individual needs, preferences, and routines. Staff had the training and support needed to provide safe care. They described managers as visible and supportive, with one staff member saying, “The team are supportive especially the managers, we all help each other out.” Safe recruitment processes, induction, supervision, and competency checks helped maintain good standards of care.
People received their medicines as prescribed and at the required times, with appropriate monitoring in place. Medicines were stored safely and the procedures of ordering, receiving, and returning medicines followed best practice guidance. Staff had received training in medicines management and administration and had access to the relevant policy. Only staff who had been assessed as competent by the registered manager were able to administer medicines. The service had worked closely with the Medicines Optimisation in Care Homes (MOCH) team to ensure medicines were safely and appropriately managed.
People were actively involved in developing and reviewing their care plans, ensuring that their views, preferences and individual needs were central to the care they received. Recognised screening tools were used to monitor people’s health and identify changing needs, enabling staff to respond promptly. For example, people’s weights were regularly recorded, and timely referrals were completed to other professionals such as dieticians and community nursing teams for advice and guidance. A professional who had worked with the service told us, “We have a good working relationship with Seaford Head Retirement Home and have always found the staff and management friendly, approachable and easy to communicate with. They contact us appropriately regarding people’s medication and any queries or issues that come up.”
One relative told us, “I am always impressed with the level of care and attention [name] is receiving especially with the advice they seek from the local GP surgery to ensure [name’s] medication and care needs are fully updated and modified if required.” People were supported to discuss their wishes for future care including end of life, with these being clearly recorded so that staff understood what was important to each person. This ensured that people received care that was personalised, responsive and respectful of their choices.
The registered manager was an active part of daily life. They spent time with people and staff, observing how care was delivered and were readily available to provide support when needed. There was a positive and inclusive culture at the service. People felt listened to and were encouraged to share their views about care and support. Regular residents and staff meetings were held. Feedback was used to help shape how care was provided and ensured that everyone had an active role in this. Governance systems were effective in monitoring and managing the quality of care. This supported the service to maintain standards and respond appropriately when improvements were needed.