Sea Breeze

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

There was a positive learning culture where safety was a shared priority, and staff and leaders used learning from incidents and safeguarding reviews to improve practice.

Accidents and incidents were investigated, used to inform any changes to the service and the provider apologised when things went wrong. This was in line with their responsibilities under their duty of candour. Incidents were logged to enable any trends or patterns to be identified.

The provider had systems to review accidents, incidents and safeguarding concerns and used these as learning opportunities. For example, safeguarding learning from another service was shared with staff through meetings and supervision, with clear expectations around updating support plans and completing keyworker meetings to reduce future risks. Leaders discussed incidents openly with staff and used learning to reinforce the importance of training compliance and safe practice. Staff were supported to raise concerns, and incident learning was embedded through supervision and team discussions rather than being treated as isolated events.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. Systems were in place to support safe transitions and continuity of care, with effective information sharing between the service and external professionals.

People were supported to move safely between services using up-to-date hospital passports, which professionals reported were consistently available and helpful. Staff communicated effectively with health partners and shared accurate, timely information to support safe decision-making and continuity. Health and social care professionals consistently described good collaboration and confidence staff would act promptly if risks emerged, supporting safe transitions across care pathways. A health professional told us, “Staff are approachable, professional, and proactive in their support, creating a positive and collaborative environment. Communication with staff is effective, ensuring continuity of care and a shared understanding of each individual’s needs.”

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately. Staff understood their safeguarding responsibilities and knew how to identify, respond to and report concerns to protect people from harm.

Safeguarding processes were clearly understood by staff, and notifications to appropriate bodies were made in line with regulatory expectations. Staff understood the need to keep safeguarding-related training up to date to ensure people were protected and risks were managed appropriately. Systems were in place to discuss safeguarding regularly through meetings and supervision.

Staff and management worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). People were protected when issues around capacity had been identified. Mental capacity assessments had been conducted and recorded to determine whether they had capacity to make specific decisions about their care. There was easy read MCA guidance available to staff to aid peoples understanding.

Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) applications were completed appropriately and in people’s best interests with minimal restrictions. Where people had a DoLS in place, conditions to their authorisations were being met.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

People were involved in understanding and managing risks, with staff taking a balanced and person-centred approach to risk. For example, specific risk assessments had been completed on activities people engaged in outside of their home, so they could participate in things that mattered to them. Staff knew people well and supported them using personalised approaches that reflected their communication needs and preferences. Families were involved where appropriate, and staff worked in partnership with them to review risks and promote positive outcomes. Staff were clear about people’s assessed risks and the detail in the written records supported staff knowledge. Where further detail was needed, such as around specific medical risks, this was recognised and actioned, showing reflective practice and ongoing learning.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. People were cared for in safe, clean and well-maintained environment that supported their needs. The environment was accessible and managed to meet people’s physical and sensory needs, with regular checks and audits in place. The registered manager and staff had completed a sensory room, and we observed people engaging positively with this new addition to their environment. Equipment and facilities were maintained and monitored, including vehicles and environmental safety checks. Leaders and staff took responsibility for identifying and addressing environmental risks, demonstrating shared ownership of safety.

Staff proactively considered environmental risks when supporting people to access community facilities and activities. Risk assessments and planning enabled people to safely visit venues such as beauty salons, leisure facilities and community events. This supported people to achieve personal goals and maintain independence whilst ensuring environmental risks were appropriately identified and managed.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. Staffing arrangements supported people to receive safe care from staff who were appropriately recruited, trained and supported. We observed enough staff to support people on a one-to-one basis. This included supporting people to go out and about as they wanted. Staff told us there were enough of them and they worked well as a team. Staff told us they felt supported by the registered manager and senior staff. One staff said, “We have a good staff team, we communicate well and get on well. [Registered manager] runs the home well, I can go to [Registered manager] anytime, open door policy.” Relatives were consistently positive about staffing, one told us, “At the moment its very good, staff are brilliant and all on the same page”.

The provider had an effective system for recruiting staff which included, appropriate checks had been completed prior to staff starting work which included checks through the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS). DBS checks provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions. Records showed a good range of mandatory and specialist training and learning from incidents was used to refresh skills. Leaders supported staff wellbeing through supervision, adjustments to working patterns and reflective discussions, enabling staff to provide consistent and safe support.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly. Staff were observed washing their hands appropriately. Cleaning schedules and records were in place, and the service was clean and tidy. Food safety checks were completed, and laundry processes supported cleanliness and hygiene. These arrangements helped protect people and staff from avoidable infection risks.

There were policies and guidance in place and staff had access to personal protective equipment and training as needed. The house was clean and well maintained.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. People received safe and person-centred support with their medicines.

The provider ensured people’s medicines were managed, administered and stored safely. Staff had received training in medicines and practice competency checks in administration were completed regularly. Medicines were managed in line with good practice guidance, with detailed, personalised information available to staff.

Staff demonstrated good knowledge of people’s medicines and health conditions and followed safe practices when administering regular and as-required medicines. Staff ensured people received their medicines in a way which suited the person and explained what was happening at the time of giving medicine. We saw people were content to receive their medicine from staff.

Digital Medication Administration Records (MAR) confirmed medicines were administered as prescribed and completed accurately. PRN or ‘as required’ medicine protocols were detailed and provided clear guidance, including actions to take in the event of a health emergency. Records were clear and included photographs to reduce the risk of error. Regular audits were carried out to ensure there was enough stock and storage was appropriate.

People were supported to be involved in decisions about their medicines, including the use of covert administration where appropriate and authorised. Strong links with local pharmacies and general practitioners supported safe prescribing, review and oversight.