Sea Breeze

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 79 (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 always made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by thoroughly assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. The provider excelled at assessing people’s needs, involving them, their families and professionals to ensure assessments were holistic, personalised and responsive to change.

People’s physical, communication, sensory and health needs were comprehensively assessed using a range of appropriate tools and professional input. Care plans reflected complex needs such as epilepsy, Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG), mobility, sensory impairment and communication differences, with clear guidance for staff on how people presented and how best to support them. Assessments were regularly reviewed and updated when needs changed, including following hospital admissions or deterioration in health.

Staff demonstrated a deep understanding of people’s needs in practice. Staff told us how support plans were continuously reviewed through observation and an understanding of effective communication strategies, we also observed this consistently in practice. Staff were highly observant and responsive, sensitively supporting people to understand choices and express their preferences. Their use of personalised communication approaches was embedded and proactive, enabling people to engage meaningfully in decisions about their care. For example, staff accurately interpreted nonverbal communication, used objects of reference and adapted their approach to ensure people were fully involved in decisions about their day to day support. One professional told us managers and staff, “Know their clients very well and are quick to act when an issue arises regarding [health changes]”. Feedback from health professionals consistently described high quality assessment and preparation for appointments, with staff providing accurate, up to date information that supported safe clinical decision making. This demonstrated assessment practice that went beyond compliance and consistently improved people’s experiences and outcomes.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. Staff used recognised tools and guidance to support care delivery, including detailed epilepsy protocols, PEG care guidance, and medicines management processes aligned with national guidance. Medicines records contained personalised information, including side effects, escalation routes and clear instructions for staff.

Staff received training aligned to people’s individual needs, such as epilepsy, moving and handling and communication methods. Observations showed staff followed good practice when supporting people with medicines, mobility and nutrition, maintaining privacy and dignity throughout. Professionals described staff as knowledgeable and competent, particularly when supporting people with complex needs. One health professional told us staff showed, “A clear understanding of moving and handling techniques, risk management, and individual care plans”.

The provider worked effectively with staff, teams and external services to coordinate care and maintain continuity. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services. The registered manager gave examples of effective joint working both within the service, the wider organisation, with family members, and with external professionals. There was regular involvement from GPs, dietitians, physiotherapists and learning disability teams. Staff shared information appropriately using hospital passports and care documentation, supporting safe transitions between services.

Professionals confirmed communication was timely and effective. One health professional told us, “People attend the hospital with their completed hospital passports which is helpful for hospital staff.”

Feedback consistently highlighted a collaborative approach, with staff engaging positively with professionals and families to plan and review care. This helped ensure people received coordinated support that reflected their needs and preferences.

The provider supported people to maintain and improve their health and wellbeing through proactive monitoring and health promotion. Care plans included guidance on nutrition, hydration, epilepsy management and long‑term conditions. Staff monitored people’s health and sought timely input from GPs and specialists when concerns arose. Some people were supported with meal planning and preparation. Staff consistently described supporting independence and empowering people to live healthier lives by listening to their needs, adapting care and ensuring they were responsive to people’s feedback. We observed people being supported to be involved in their meal choices.

People were supported to make healthier choices through meaningful activities, access to the community, physical exercise and opportunities to engage in food preparation and gardening. Health professionals described the service as proactive and responsive, noting that staff contacted them promptly when health concerns arose and provided accurate monitoring information such as weight charts and food records.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

There were systems to review outcomes through audits, care reviews and professional feedback. Changes in people’s health or wellbeing resulted in updates to care plans and risk assessments.Internal audits, including medicines, nutrition and safety checks, were completed regularly and used to identify learning and improvement actions. Staff monitored people on a day-to-day basis. Where needed, referrals to healthcare professionals were made. Documentation showed outcomes such as increased communication, engagement and independence were recognised and recorded. Staff reflected positively on people’s progress.One told us how they felt developing detailed communication plans had, “made a difference” to outcomes for a person.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. The provider generally ensured consent to care and treatment was sought appropriately, in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Staff understood the importance of consent and used accessible, pictorial consent forms where needed. There was evidence of family involvement and best‑interest decision‑making when people lacked capacity. However, some consent documentation lacked clarity about who had signed or whether information had been fully explained, particularly for consent relating to photographs, videos and some end‑of‑life care plans. These issues did not impact people’s day‑to‑day care and the registered manager was in the process of reviewing records to ensure this was addressed.