Sea Breeze

Sea Breeze is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and personal care as a 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 last inspection, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Sea Breeze accommodates up to eight people with a learning and or physical disability in one adapted building. There were eight people living at the home on the day of the inspection. The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support CQC policy and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

There was a registered manager in place. 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.

People continued to receive safe care as they were supported by staff who knew how to protect them from harm. Staff were aware of people’s individual risks and plans were in place to minimise these while maintaining the person’s independence. Staffing was arranged based on people’s individual needs and what activities were happening in the home. Staffing remained flexible to suit the people living at the home.

People were treated well which had a positive impact on their well-being. People we spoke with told us that all staff spoke kindly to them and our observations confirmed people felt happy and comfortable in their home.

Safe medicines management was followed and people received their medicines as prescribed. Staff protected people from the risk of infection and followed procedures to prevent and control the spread of infections.

Staff completed regular refresher training to ensure their knowledge and skills stayed in line with good practice guidance.

Staff supported people to eat and drink sufficient amounts to meet their needs. Staff liaised with other health and social care professionals and ensured people received effective, coordinated care in regards to any health needs.

Staff were aware of people’s communication methods and how they expressed themselves. This enabled them to support people to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Staff respected people’s individual differences and supported them with any religious or cultural needs. Staff supported people to maintain relationships with families. People’s privacy and dignity was respected and promoted.

Staff applied the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. An appropriate, well maintained environment was provided that met people’s needs.

People received personalised care that meet their needs. Assessments were undertaken to identify people’s support needs and these were regularly reviewed. Detailed care records were developed informing staff of the level of support people required and how they wanted it to be delivered. People participated in a range of activities.

A complaints process ensured any concerns raised were listened to and investigated.

Where possible people were involved in the planning and review of their care and support. People were supported to continue with their hobbies and interests which promoted their independence and confidence. Information was provided to people should they wish to raise a complaint.

Systems were in place to monitor and assess the quality and safety of the care provided. Where areas for improvement were identified, systems were in place to ensure lessons were learnt and used to improve the service delivery. There were opportunities for people and relatives to feedback their views about their care and this was used to improve the service. Staff were supported to carry out their roles and responsibilities effectively, so that people received care and support in-line with their needs and wishes.

The registered manager adhered to the requirements of their Care Quality Commission registration, including submitting notifications about key events that occurred.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Sea Breeze provides care and accommodation for up to eight people. On the day of the inspection eight people were living in the home. The service provides care for people with a learning and or a physical disability.

At the time of our inspection there was a registered manager. 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.

We found that staff interacted well with people and people were cared for safely. The provider had systems and processes in place to safeguard people and staff knew how to keep people safe. Risk assessments were in place and accidents and incidents were monitored and recorded.

Medicines were administered and stored safely.

The provider acted in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). If the location is a care home the Care Quality Commission is required by law to monitor the operation of the DoLS, and to report on what we find.

We found that people's health care needs were assessed, and care planned and delivered to meet those needs. People had access to other healthcare professionals such as a dietician and GP.

Staff were kind and sensitive to people when they were providing support. Staff had a good understanding of people's needs.

People were supported to pursue leisure activities and access local facilities.

Staff were aware of people's need for privacy and dignity and made arrangements to provide this.

People were supported to eat enough to keep them healthy. People had access to drinks and snacks during the day and had choices at mealtimes. Where people had special dietary requirements we saw that these were provided for.

There were sufficient staff available to care for people appropriately.

Staff were provided with training on a variety of subjects to ensure that they had the skills to meet people's needs.

Staff felt able to raise concerns and issues with management. A process for raising concerns was in place.

The provider recorded and monitored complaints.

Audits were carried out on a regular basis and action put in place to address any concerns and issues.

We used this inspection to answer our five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

This inspection was carried out by a single inspector. Below is a summary of what we found.

Is the service safe?

Relatives of people said they felt their relatives were safe while being supported. They told us the care staff were good. None of the people who lived at Sea Breeze had any concerns about their safety. Staff told us the care and support plans gave them the information they needed to provide the level of support people required.

We saw care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that ensured people's safety and welfare. Both of the care plans we looked at had risk assessments in place to help minimise any risk that had been identified.

The provider and staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The manager told us additional training was being provided to managers in light of new guidance. The manager said that this would be cascaded down to staff.

The fire log book showed regular checks of the fire alarm and emergency lighting systems were recorded. We also saw that regular fire evacuation exercises were conducted

We saw safety certificates were in date for gas safety, electrical wiring and for portable appliances.

Is the service effective?

Each person had a plan of care and support. We saw that support plans explained what the person could do for themselves and what support they needed from staff.

During our visit we saw staff consulted people as much as possible when they supported them. Staff spoke to people clearly and explained to people what they were doing. Staff told us that the care and support plans gave them the information they needed to provide the level of support people required.

We looked at how staff recorded what support had been provided each day. We saw that recording took place throughout the day and provided good information about the care and support given and provided evidence of care delivery.

Is the service caring?

We observed staff speaking to people appropriately and they used people's preferred form of address. We saw people and staff got on well together. There was a good rapport between staff and people who used the service and we observed staff and people enjoying each other's company.

We observed that people were happy with the support they received and a relative of one person we spoke with was very happy with the care and support their relative received. They told us that the staff were caring and provided the help, care and support their relative needed.

Is the service responsive?

We saw people had regular reviews of the care and support they received. We saw one person's care plan had been amended as a result of a change in their care needs.

We saw that people were able to participate in a range of activities both in the home and in the local community. Staff told us that they encouraged and supported people to participate in activities to promote and maintain their well-being.

People who used the service, their relatives and staff were asked for their views about how the home was meeting people's needs and any concerns or ways to improve the service were acted on.

Is the service well led?

Sea Breeze had a policy and procedure for quality assurance and the provider organisation employed a Quality Manager who ensured that six monthly audits on the quality of the service provided was carried out. The provider organisation also employed an area manager who carried out regular visits to the service.

A relative we spoke with told us that they had regular contact with the home and said that they could speak to the manager or staff at any time. They told us they were kept informed about any issues which affected their relatives.

Staff meetings took place every three months and minutes of these meetings were kept. Staff we spoke with confirmed this and said the staff meetings enabled them to discuss issues openly with the manager and the rest of the staff team.

Meetings with people who used the service also took place weekly and these were used to discuss any issues in the home and also to plan activities and menu's for the following week.

The manager told us that all staff received supervision every six to eight weeks where staff performance issues were discussed and additional staff training was identified as necessary. The manager also told us that staff received annual appraisals. Staff we spoke with confirmed this.

We also spoke with five relatives of people and they told us that they were happy with the care and support their relatives received. They said that they were consulted about the care and support their relative received and they were involved in the planning of their relatives care. One relative told us that getting their relative to visit them at their home was currently a problem, but this was mainly due to transport issues and the complex needs of their relative.

Relatives told us that they knew how to make a complaint if they needed to and said they were confident that any complaints would be dealt with appropriately.

We spoke with the registered manager, the deputy manager and two members of staff. They all said that they enjoyed working at the home and that everyone got on well together. Staff said they were well supported and that they were provided with the training and information they needed to support people effectively. All staff said the management were supportive and approachable