CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Seabrook House Limited
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, regular risk assessments, safe premises and appropriate safeguarding arrangements. Medicines were recorded and stored safely, including medicines prescribed to be given when needed.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had relevant training, supervision and knowledge of residents' needs. Residents had access to health services, flexible meals and support to develop daily living skills.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were described as kind, compassionate and respectful. They knew residents well, offered choices, respected privacy and supported people to maintain relationships and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed, person centred and reviewed monthly. Activities were flexible and linked to residents' interests and goals, and people knew how to raise complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found committed managers, good teamwork and effective checks on care, medicines, risks and the environment. Staff were positive about management but raised concerns about pay, sick pay and sometimes using their own resources.
What inspectors found, March 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some staff concerns about pay and sick pay.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 28 January 2019. They spent time with 15 residents, observed care and spoke with relatives, health professionals, managers and staff. They reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff files, training, maintenance records and quality checks.
The home supported 21 men with mental illness and did not provide nursing care. Inspectors found enough staff, clear risk assessments, safe medicines systems and suitable training. Residents were supported to make choices, build independence and take part in activities in the home and community.
The care was described as kind, respectful and tailored to each person. Care plans were detailed and regularly reviewed. The home had systems to listen to concerns and monitor quality.
The overall rating was Good, and all five areas were rated Good. This was unchanged from the previous inspection. The report says there was no evidence of serious risks or concerns.
Personalised support
The home understood residents' individual and complex mental health needs. Staff used this knowledge to reduce distress and support people's goals.
“Seabrook House was providing a good service, especially in meeting people's very individual and complex needs, often on a one to one basis.” from the report
Kind relationships
Staff knew residents well and treated them with dignity. Inspectors saw staff listening, offering choices and spending meaningful time with people.
“People and the staff knew each other well and these relationships were valued.” from the report
Safety and staffing
Inspectors found enough suitably qualified staff and clear guidance about individual risks. Staff supported people to take reasonable risks while promoting independence.
“There were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified staff to keep people safe and meet their needs.” from the report
Good oversight
The home used audits, incident reviews and provider visits to monitor care and identify improvements. Managers were described as open and approachable.
“There were effective systems in place to monitor all aspects of the care and treatment people received.” from the report
Staff pay and sick pay
minorStaff said pay levels and sick pay arrangements affected how valued they felt. They also said pay could mean trained staff did not always stay with the home.
“They said the pay level sometimes meant staff did not always remain with the service once trained.” from the report
Staff using personal resources
minorThe report says staff sometimes used their own money to buy items and their own phones for work. Managers were aware these concerns had been discussed with the provider.
“Staff also used their own phones which they said could feel like they were permanently working at times.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure staffing levels remain sufficient when trained staff leave?
- 02What support is available for a resident whose mental health or behaviour changes quickly?
- 03How would you support my relative's personal routines, community activities and plans for greater independence?
- 04How are medicines prescribed to be given when needed monitored and reviewed?
- 05What has the provider done about staff concerns over pay, sick pay and using personal phones or money for work?
This was an unannounced inspection of the care home, including its premises and care, and it did not assess the unregulated social care activities of the supported living service. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 March 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.
What inspectors found, September 2016
Seabrook House Limited was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and effective support, with improvements since the previous inspection.
Inspectors visited on 15 and 16 August 2016 without announcing the visit. They spoke with people living at the home, staff and health and social care professionals. They also checked care plans, medicines records, staff records, menus, safety records and quality checks.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe recruitment, good support with health needs and medicines, and care plans that helped people work towards independence.
The previous inspection in August 2015 had found a breach because risks had not been fully assessed or reviewed. At this inspection, the report says improvements had been made and the home was fully compliant with the regulations.
There were still some matters to address. Records did not fully explain when some medicines prescribed 'as required' should be offered. One recently recruited member of staff had not received supervision for several months, although the manager acted during the inspection.
Progress towards independence
The home supported people to gain confidence, learn practical and social skills, work, and move on to live in their own homes.
“We heard about people whose lives had been positively transformed as a result of the help and support they had received from the service.” from the report
Caring staff
Inspectors found staff patient, respectful and empathetic, including when people were distressed or showed challenging behaviour.
“People were supported by a positive and enthusiastic staff team who demonstrated empathy and caring towards each person.” from the report
Personalised support
People helped create their own support plans, set goals and choose activities. Staff reviewed progress with them and adjusted plans when needed.
“Each person had a key worker who met with them regularly to review their progress towards their goals, and to adjust their support plan where necessary.” from the report
Improved risk planning
The home had addressed the earlier shortfall by adding information about potential risks and the steps staff should take to reduce them.
“At this inspection we found that improvements had been made to the care plans to include information on all potential risks and any measures to be taken by staff to reduce these.” from the report
Instructions for some medicines
needs fixingSome records did not clearly explain when 'as required' medicines should be offered. This could mean staff unfamiliar with a person might not offer the medicine at the right time.
“Where people were prescribed medicines on an 'as required' basis the records did not fully explain when these should be offered.” from the report
Staff supervision
needs fixingOne recently recruited staff member had worked for several months without supervision. The manager acted immediately and said the planning and recording system would be reviewed.
“However, one recently recruited member of staff said they had not received supervision despite working in the service for a number of months.” from the report
Complaint outcome
minorOne person said they were unhappy with the outcome of a complaint about their care. The report says staff explained that some complaints related to restrictions outside the home's control.
“However, another person said they had made a complaint about their care but they were unhappy with the outcome.” from the report
- 01How do you now record exactly when each 'as required' medicine should be offered?
- 02How do you check that all staff receive supervision at the frequency set out in your policy?
- 03How are complaints investigated and explained to the person who raised them?
- 04How will you assess whether my relative's risks and support needs are suitable for this home before admission?
- 05What activities, training or work opportunities would be available to help my relative move towards greater independence?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service, including the care home and some regulated personal care in the community; other social care activities in supported living were not regulated by CQC. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 September 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 Seabrook House Limited
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- March 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 January 2011.
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
17 live-in carers within about an hour of Devon
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 £1,270 a week. 15 can care for a couple. 13 years' experience on average.
“She is such a warm and gentle person while being professional and competent at the same time.”
“She looked after my mum, who can be incredibly challenging, so well and so gently, and we always felt confident that my mum was getting the best care available.”
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.