We carried out a review of the data available to us about Seaford Head Retirement Home on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Seaford Head Retirement Home, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice. A dedicated entry door for staff leading directly into a changing and laundry area had been created. Staff used this area to change into work uniforms and don PPE. All worn uniforms laundered on site. The home was well maintained and carpets had been replaced in communal areas. A full-time domestic team worked at the home and after every visit carried out a deep clean and thorough ventilation of areas where visitors had been.
Seaford Head Retirement Home is a residential care home providing care and accommodation for up to 16 older people with dementia or dementia type illness. There were 13 people living at the service on the day of our inspection. Seaford Head Retirement Home is an adapted building in a residential area of Seaford based over three floors with an outside seating area for people to use in nice weather.
The provider was registered manager of Seaford Head Retirement Home and a second service they owned also located in Seaford. The registered manager based themselves at the second service and the care manager was in day to day charge of Seaford Head Retirement Home. The registered manager had full oversight and was available when needed
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People and relatives were positive about the support provided at Seaford Head Retirement Home. Relatives said the care manager was very approachable and that staff were caring.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
Risks to people’s health and safety had been identified and actions were in place to ensure risk was minimised. Staff were aware of the actions to take if they thought anyone was at risk of harm or discrimination. Any concerns identified had been reported to appropriate external professionals.
A complaints procedure was in place and although there were no current complaints staff and relatives were aware of the process.
Staff knew people very well, they treated them with kindness and respect and demonstrated a good understanding of people's individual needs. People were assisted to access healthcare services when needed.
Care documentation supported good person centred care for people. Information included peoples care and support needs and personal preferences. People received their medicines when they needed them by staff who were trained to give them out safely.
There were enough staff working to provide the support people needed, at times of their choice. People were supported to continue with hobbies and activities of their choice. Recruitment procedures ensured only suitable staff worked at the home. People told us staff were available when they needed assistance. Relatives felt that consistent staff meant staff knew people well.
A comprehensive system of quality checks and internal audits to monitor care, documentation, safety and quality of the service were completed by the care manager.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was Good (Report published 19 January 2017)
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
There was a registered manager was in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.
The previous inspection of the service took place in April 2014. The service met all the regulations we checked at that time.
Staff knew how to identify abuse and report any concerns following the provider’s safeguarding procedures to keep people safe. Staff had confidence in the management team to deal with safeguarding issues promptly and effectively. Risks to people's health and safety were assessed, managed appropriately and recorded in their care plans.
Accidents and incidents were recorded and monitored to identify how the risks of reoccurrence could be reduced.
The provider had a robust recruitment and selection process to ensure staff had the right skills and experience to support people who used the service. People received support from suitably vetted staff.
There were enough competent and suitably qualified staff to support people. Staff knew people well which helped to ensure consistency of care.
There were safe arrangements in place for managing people’s medicines. People received their medicines safely when needed from staff with the relevant training and competency.
Staff received regular training to ensure they had the skills and knowledge to care for people effectively. Staff received supervisions and appraisals to monitor their performance and professional development. Staff felt supported to undertake their role.
There were systems in place which ensured staff complied with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. People consented to care and treatment.
People received support to maintain a balanced diet and to have enough to eat and drink. People chose their meals according to their likes and dislikes and were involved as much as they were able in making choices about their food. Staff knew about and provided for people’s dietary preferences and needs.
People’s health care needs were monitored. Staff supported people to access healthcare services for support and advice to promote people’s well-being.
Staff provided support to people in a kind and caring manner. People were treated with dignity and respect. Staff had developed positive and trusting relationships with people and their relatives. Staff supported people to develop friendships with other people at the service.
People and staff were encouraged to give their views about the service and their feedback was used to drive improvement. People knew how to make a complaint if they were not happy about their care. People and their relatives had information about how to use the complaints process and they said their concerns were addressed in a timely manner.
People were involved in making decisions about how they wanted to spend their time and their day to day care. Staff promoted people’s independence and encouraged people to do as much as possible for themselves.
People received care that responded to their individual care and support needs. Staff assessed people’s needs and knew their wishes and preferences.
People and staff described the registered manager as approachable and effective. An open culture put people at the centre of their care and support.
There was an effective quality assurance system in place to review the quality of the service. The registered manager had an improvement plan to develop the service further.
The registered manager worked closely with healthcare professionals for specialist advice and guidance to improve the service.
The focus of the inspection was to answer five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?
Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people who used the service, their relatives and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.
To see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.
This is a summary of what we found:
Is the service safe?
People had been cared for in an environment that was safe, and well maintained. Equipment and services in the home had been well maintained and serviced regularly.
Risk assessments were in place to provide information to staff to help minimise the risk of any harm to people.
All feedback indicated that there was enough staff and they were competent in the work they undertook.
CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. Staff were able to describe when a DoLS had been put in place in the past and why this had been used. Staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made, and the manager knew how to submit and review one.
Is the service effective?
We saw individual plans of care were in place. There was evidence to confirm that these were reviewed and updated to reflect any changing need.
People told us that they received the care they required and were well cared for. People said, 'I am quite happy here thank you.' Direct observation and discussion with staff confirmed staff were knowledgeable about people's care and social support needs.
Training records seen confirmed staff had received appropriate training to meet the needs of people living at the home.
Is the service caring?
People were supported by kind and caring staff. We saw that staff were patient and gave encouragement when supporting people.
Our observations confirmed that people were encouraged to be independent but were helped when they needed any support.
Is the service responsive?
We saw that people's needs had been assessed before they moved into the home. Individual care plans were developed for each person following admission. People were given choices and when they declined, this was responded to appropriately. People had access to activities and had been supported to maintain relationships with their friends and relatives. Staff and people talked about the dogs and other pets that came to the home for petting.
Is the service well-led?
We saw that a number of quality assurance processes were in place. These included feedback from people who used the service and their representatives.
People, visitors and staff told us that if they had any concerns they would speak with the manager. Everyone spoken with told us that they had no reason to complain but felt that if they did any issue would be dealt with effectively.
Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. The manager told us a deputy manager was to be appointed. Senior care staff worked in the home alongside more junior staff to lead the shift. Staff said they were kept up to date with any changes as required.
The people we spoke with told us they were happy with the care they had received and with the staff team. One person who used the service told us, "The staff are always here to help me. They are helpful and find solutions to all my problems.' Another person who used the service told us, "I definitely get proper treatment here, I really like it.' Staff we spoke with had a good understanding of the support needs of the people who used the service. One member of staff we spoke with told us, "The residents are at the centre of everything we do here.'
Staff we spoke with confirmed that they felt supported and had received relevant training, which included the safeguarding of vulnerable adults. Staff told us that they understood the signs of abuse and were aware of how to raise concerns.
We also saw evidence that the provider had an effective recruitment and selection procedure in place to ensure that staff were qualified to do their job.
The provider had appropriate systems in place to gather information about the safety and quality of the service.