CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Sea Gables Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that testing arrangements and PPE risk management were not always in line with guidance. They were assured about several other infection-control measures, including hygiene, visiting and outbreak management.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, May 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found infection-control gaps that the provider said it had addressed.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 10 May 2022. It followed concerns about infection prevention and control. Inspectors looked only at infection-control measures.
Inspectors were assured about visitors, social distancing, hygiene, admissions and managing outbreaks. People were also supported to use the community safely and take part in activities.
There were problems with testing after a positive COVID-19 test and with the safe use of personal protective equipment. The provider said it had introduced the correct testing arrangements and staff checks on PPE use. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report is not an overall quality rating.
Visiting
The home supported people to receive visitors in line with government guidance.
“People were supported to have visitors in line with government guidance.” from the report
Community access
People were supported to go out safely and take part in different activities.
“People were supported to access the community safely and enjoy a range of activities.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured about several practical infection-control arrangements, including hygiene, safe admissions and managing outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Testing arrangements
needs fixingThe home was not always following guidance on testing staff within 90 days of a positive test. The provider said it had introduced the appropriate testing regime.
“The service was not always meeting the guidance on testing for staff within 90 days of a positive test.” from the report
PPE risk management
seriousThe provider had not assessed or acted on risks when PPE was not used according to guidance. It said it had addressed this and introduced staff competency checks.
“The provider had not assessed or acted on the risks to people receiving care, and others, when PPE was not used in line with guidance.” from the report
- 01What testing arrangements are now used for staff who have had a positive COVID-19 test?
- 02How do you check that staff use PPE correctly and safely?
- 03Can you show how staff competency checks on PPE use are recorded?
- 04How do you prevent and manage infection outbreaks now?
- 05Which parts of the home's care and quality have not been assessed in this report?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control under Safe; the service was inspected but not rated, and the other questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 May 2022 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 2019
Sea Gables Residential Home is Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with improvements since the last inspection.
This was an unannounced inspection over 30 September and 2 October 2019. One inspector spoke with three people, two relatives, eight staff members and two outside professionals. They also observed care and checked care, medicine, staff and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough suitable staff, safe medicine systems, detailed care plans, kind support and many opportunities for people to make choices, learn skills and take part in activities.
Safe, Effective and Well-led had improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection. Caring and Responsive remained Good. The report says the manager had acted on earlier shortfalls and the home now met the relevant regulations.
Unhurried support
Staffing levels were based on people's needs. Inspectors saw staff taking time to provide care without rushing.
“Staff were observed to have the time they required to provide people with responsive and effective care in a relaxed and unhurried way.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff listened to people and responded gently when someone became upset. People were treated with dignity and their privacy was respected.
“Our observations of staff demonstrated that they were kind, respectful and listened to people.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make choices about food, activities and daily life. They were also helped to develop practical skills and move towards more independent living.
“People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.” from the report
Wide range of activities
People could take part in activities suited to their interests, including community outings, voluntary work, sport and training.
“A wealth of activities were available to people to enhance and promote positive wellbeing.” from the report
Action after the last inspection
The home had addressed the earlier problems that led to Requires Improvement ratings in Safe, Effective and Well-led.
“Following the previous inspection, the registered manager had acted to address the shortfalls we found, and improvements had been made to meet the regulations.” from the report
End-of-life information
minorNobody was receiving end-of-life care during the inspection. The report says information had not yet been recorded for other people, although this was being planned.
“Although other people did not yet have this information captured, this was being planned and would be approached sensitively at the right time for each person.” from the report
- 01How have you recorded each person's wishes and preferences about end-of-life care since this inspection?
- 02What specific changes were made after the previous Requires Improvement rating?
- 03How do you make sure staff follow each person's guidance when they may become upset or agitated?
- 04How are people involved in choosing activities, meals and the staff who support them?
- 05How do you check that medicines, care plans and risk assessments remain accurate and up to date?
This inspection covered all five CQC questions, with Safe, Effective and Well-led improving from Requires Improvement and Caring and Responsive remaining Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 November 2019 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 Gables Residential Home
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 December 2010.
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
84 live-in carers within about two hours of Isle of Wight
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 £1,010 to £1,230 a week. 68 can care for a couple. 11 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.