CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Sea Breeze
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, August 2018
Sea Breeze was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with Good ratings in all five areas.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 24 July 2018. Inspectors spoke with staff and a relative, observed people's care, and reviewed care records, medicines, staff records, policies and the premises.
People could not speak with inspectors, so their experience was judged through observation and other evidence. Inspectors saw people appearing happy, relaxed and comfortable. They found staff knew people's needs, supported choice and treated people with respect.
The home was rated Good overall and Good for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was unchanged from the previous inspection.
Safe medicines
Inspectors found medicines were stored, administered and monitored safely. They also found that previous overstocking concerns had been addressed.
“Medicine administration records (MARs) were completed with no errors or omissions.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff knew people well and responded promptly to their needs. Inspectors saw a calm atmosphere and respectful interactions.
“There was a calm and inclusive atmosphere in the home.” from the report
Personalised records
Care plans included people's histories, preferences, communication methods and health needs. Daily records gave a clear picture of people's lives.
“The daily records we looked at were person centred; an insight into people's daily lives could be obtained by reading them.” from the report
Trained staff
Staff completed regular training and received supervision and appraisals. Training covered people's specific needs, including learning disabilities, autism and behaviours that could challenge others.
“Staff had the knowledge and skills to undertake their role and regularly refreshed this through completion of training courses.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The provider used audits and other checks to monitor care, safety and the running of the home. Inspectors found action was taken when improvements were identified.
“The provider's governance framework helped monitor the management and leadership of the service, as well as the ongoing quality and safety of the care people were receiving.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are people involved in their care planning and reviews when they cannot communicate verbally?
- 02How do you check that Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications remain current while awaiting formal assessment?
- 03How are people's communication methods, including pictures, sign language or electronic devices, used in everyday decisions?
- 04What activities are currently available, and how are people's choices and interests recorded?
- 05How are medicines given covertly reviewed with families, the GP and pharmacist?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service and all five ratings were assessed as Good; the previous overall rating was also Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 August 2018 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, November 2016
Sea Breeze was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with only minor record-keeping points to improve.
This was an unannounced inspection on 12 October 2016. One inspector observed care, spoke with three people, four staff and managers, and reviewed care records, medicines, recruitment, incidents, policies and quality checks.
The home supported eight people with learning or physical disabilities. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, suitable risk assessments and safe recruitment. Staff understood people's needs and treated them kindly and respectfully.
People were supported with food, healthcare, activities, family contact and communication. Care plans were detailed and regularly reviewed. The home had systems for complaints, staff concerns and checking the quality of care.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The report also noted that one fire safety record was not dated, and that some staff views had not yet been collated.
Kind and respectful care
Staff were patient and considerate. They understood people's individual communication methods, preferences and signs of anxiety or discomfort.
“Staff were respectful and spoke with people in a considerate way.” from the report
Personalised support
Support plans gave clear guidance about people's needs, goals and the choices they could make. Staff adapted support to individual communication and sensory needs.
“People received personalised care, which was responsive to their specific needs.” from the report
Safe medicines and staffing
Medicines were stored, administered and recorded safely. Inspectors found enough staff, with good staff retention supporting continuity of care.
“We found that there were sufficient staff on duty to meet people's needs.” from the report
Good oversight
Managers used audits, incident reviews and meetings to monitor the service and identify actions. Staff felt able to raise concerns.
“There were effective systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service.” from the report
Fire safety record
minorAn action in the fire safety record was not dated, so it was not possible to check whether repairs had been completed promptly. The manager agreed to add dates.
“The action recorded in the fire record was not dated therefore it was not possible to audit that repairs were undertaken in a timely manner.” from the report
Staff feedback not yet reviewed
minorStaff had recently been asked for their views, but the results had not yet been brought together when inspectors visited.
“Staff told us they had been asked their views recently but these had not been collated as yet.” from the report
Some healthcare support was difficult to obtain
minorThe manager reported a positive relationship with most local health professionals, but said some services required repeated requests for support.
“Some others proved to be a challenge and they felt they had to make repeated requests for support.” from the report
- 01How do you now record the date when fire safety repairs or other actions are completed?
- 02Have staff survey results since this inspection been collated, and what changes followed from them?
- 03How do you make sure people with limited verbal communication can express their choices, needs and concerns?
- 04How do you manage any delays or difficulties when people need support from local health professionals?
- 05How are medicines, care plans and risk assessments checked and updated for each person?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service and all five CQC questions, based on observations, discussions and records reviewed on 12 October 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 November 2016 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Sea Breeze
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- August 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 December 2012.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
26 live-in carers within about an hour of Hampshire
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.