CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Seabourne House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines arrangements, suitable recruitment checks, safeguarding procedures and regular safety checks. Personal emergency evacuation plans were in place and fire evacuations were practised.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's health was monitored and staff had training for their needs. The home followed the Mental Capacity Act process and supported people to choose food and drink.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were described as kind, respectful and patient. People were supported to be independent, have privacy, stay in contact with relatives and help shape their home.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans gave detailed, personalised guidance. People chose activities and staff were flexible, and complaints were recorded and followed up.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found stronger management oversight, regular audits and clear staff responsibilities. Feedback from people and relatives was sought and used.
What inspectors found, October 2017
Seabourne House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with major improvements since the previous inspection.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 20 September 2017. One inspector spoke with people, staff, managers and a relative, observed care, and checked care plans, risk assessments, medicines records, recruitment files, training records and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, appropriate staff training, good support with health and choices, respectful care, detailed care plans and effective complaints and monitoring systems.
The previous inspection in June 2016 rated the service Requires Improvement and found five breaches. The report says the provider had resolved these issues by this inspection, including staffing, health support, mental capacity processes, care planning and management oversight.
Personalised care
Care plans included detailed information about people's communication, preferences, health, behaviour, interests and support needs. Staff showed they understood this guidance.
“Peoples care plans had been updated since the last inspection. They were person-centred and described in good detail how staff should support people in a consistent way.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff spent time with people in an unhurried way and respected their privacy, independence and wish to have space.
“Staff demonstrated they understood people and had good knowledge about their personal histories, interests and preferences.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored securely, staff were trained, and daily and management checks were carried out.
“There were safe processes for storing, administering and returning medicines. People's medicines were stored in lockable storage in their rooms.” from the report
Improved management
The provider had introduced audits, action plans and regular meetings to identify and address problems. Inspectors found that previous concerns had been resolved.
“Robust systems for monitoring the service and identifying areas in need of improvement had been established since out last visit.” from the report
Some people may struggle to complain
minorAn easy-read complaints policy was available, but some people would depend on staff to notice unhappiness because they might find the formal process difficult.
“Some people would find it difficult to understand how to complain following the formal process.” from the report
Minor maintenance work
minorA July 2017 fire risk review recommended adjusting some fire doors and carrying out minor work in the laundry area. The home had included this in its maintenance plans.
“The registered manager said a full fire risk assessments review had been completed in July 2017 and some minor maintenance work had been recommended;” from the report
- 01How do you recognise and record signs that someone is unhappy if they cannot use the formal complaints process?
- 02Has the minor maintenance identified in the July 2017 fire risk review, including the fire doors and laundry area, been completed?
- 03How does the registered manager maintain oversight of this home while also overseeing two other services?
- 04How often are personal emergency evacuation plans reviewed and fire evacuations practised?
- 05How do you make sure each person can take part in activities or one-to-one time that matches their preferences and needs?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection of all five key questions, involving conversations, observations and checks of care, staffing, medicines, records and quality systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 October 2017 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 Seabourne House
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- October 2017Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Kent
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 £980 to £1,260 a week. 33 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
“Irene was a very kind and empathetic carer who knew just the right words to say to put a smile on my face.”
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.