CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Seabrooke Manor Care Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Medicines were not always managed safely. Inspectors found weaknesses in the arrangements for covert medicines, PRN medicines and time-sensitive medicines, although staffing, recruitment, infection control and risk management were otherwise described positively.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and reviewed, staff were trained and supported, and people received suitable food, drinks and healthcare support.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff offered choices and supported people to remain as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was generally personalised and activities reflected people's interests. A few medicines care plans did not contain enough detail, and inspectors recommended improving them.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The home had quality checks and a positive culture, but its audits had not identified the medicines and care plan problems. Relatives also reported poor communication and a lack of involvement after the provider changed.
What inspectors found, December 2023
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, but medicines systems and quality checks were not always reliable.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 13 and 14 June 2023. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and professionals. They observed care and checked care plans, risk assessments, medicines records, training records and quality checks.
People generally felt safe and well cared for. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable training, good support with health needs, respectful care and a range of activities. The five question ratings were Good for Effective, Caring and Responsive.
The home was not always safe because some medicines arrangements were weak. Records and guidance for covert medicines, medicines given when needed and time-sensitive medicines were not always detailed or reliable. Inspectors also found that relatives were not always kept informed or involved.
The overall rating is Requires Improvement. This means the home was meeting some important standards, but improvements were needed, especially in safe medicines management and the systems used to check and improve quality.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff being patient and caring. People were offered choices and supported with privacy, dignity and independence.
“We observed staff interacting with people in a kind way. They approached people gently and with patience, used kind and caring words.” from the report
Enough suitable staff
There were enough staff to meet people's needs. Recruitment checks, induction and regular skills assessments were in place.
“There were enough staff to keep people safe and meet their needs.” from the report
Health and wellbeing support
Staff worked with health professionals and supported people to attend appointments. People were also supported with activities that promoted emotional wellbeing.
“The provider worked closely with other professionals to support people with their healthcare needs.” from the report
Activities and relationships
The home offered group and individual activities across the week, including social, cultural and religious events.
“People were supported to take part in a range of different social and leisure activities.” from the report
Medicines arrangements
seriousSome medicines were not supported by reliable enough systems. This included medicines given when needed, time-sensitive medicines and covert medicines.
“The provider had medicines management systems and processes but a few of these were not always effective to ensure people always received their medicines safely.” from the report
Care plan detail
needs fixingA few medicines care plans did not explain people's needs and preferences in enough detail for all staff, particularly new staff.
“A few people's care plans were not detailed enough about people's needs and preferences in relation to medicines.” from the report
Communication with relatives
needs fixingMany relatives spoken to by telephone said they were not always involved or kept updated about the home or their family member.
“Relatives also told us that since the provider had changed, there was a lack of engagement and communication with them.” from the report
Quality checks missed problems
needs fixingThe home's audits had not identified the medicines and care plan shortfalls found by inspectors.
“The medicines audits were however not always effective as they had not identified the shortfalls we found around the management of covert medicines, PRN protocols and time sensitive medicines.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to ensure time-sensitive medicines are given at the prescribed time?
- 02How do you make sure PRN medicine instructions are tailored to each person's needs?
- 03How are covert medicines recorded, and how do you ensure every staff member knows how to give them?
- 04How have you improved medicines care plans so they give enough information to new staff?
- 05What regular meetings or updates will relatives now receive about the home and their family member?
This was an unannounced inspection of the whole care home and all five CQC key questions; it was the first inspection after the service changed provider and re-registered. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 December 2023 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 Seabrooke Manor Care Home
2 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- December 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- May 2018GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2022
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 August 2022.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Redbridge
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 £1,250 a week. 75 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Sidonia is a first class live-in carer whose dedication and thoughtfulness made her stay a happy experience.”
“Charity would take Nan on holidays day trips and shopping adventures”
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.