CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Seacliff Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, suitable risk assessments and safe medicines procedures. Infection prevention measures were also in place.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its rating was carried forward from the last inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its rating was carried forward from the last inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its rating was carried forward from the last inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found that audits and checks were working effectively, staff understood their roles and the management team encouraged improvement and feedback.
What inspectors found, April 2023
Seacliff Care Home rated Good; inspectors found safe care and strong improvements in medicines and management.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 17 April 2023. One inspector spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff. They also observed care and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, suitable risk assessments, safe medicines procedures and effective infection control. They also found that accidents and incidents were reviewed for lessons.
The home had previously been rated Requires Improvement. Inspectors found significant improvements in quality checks and medicines management. The provider was no longer in breach of the regulations mentioned in the previous report.
Only Safe and Well-led were inspected during this visit. The other key question ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection, so this report does not give new findings about Effective, Caring or Responsive.
Safer medicines
Medicines procedures had improved since the previous inspection. Records, storage, administration and staff competency checks were found to be safe.
“Medicine administration records were completed accurately, and checks were in place to ensure they were signed and legible.” from the report
Staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found enough staff on duty and appropriate recruitment checks. Staffing levels had been increased using a tool based on people's needs.
“There were enough staff on duty, and they had been recruited using robust, safe processes.” from the report
Risk management
People had regularly reviewed risk assessments with clear instructions for staff. Accidents and incidents were analysed to identify patterns and reduce risks.
“Accidents and incidents were recorded, and the registered manager analysed the result monthly.” from the report
Improved oversight
The home had introduced more checks and oversight at home and provider level. Inspectors found that quality assurance systems were now operating effectively.
“Significant and sustained improvements had been made since the last inspection. Governance systems were operating effectively.” from the report
Positive staff culture
Staff said they felt appreciated and proud to work at the home. Inspectors found positive comments about teamwork and management.
“Staff were proud to work at Seacliff Care Home, their comments included: "I am proud of the team and proud to be a part of the team” from the report
Recruitment remains ongoing
minorThe home was still recruiting and had faced challenges linked to the national shortage of care workers. Inspectors nevertheless found enough staff on duty at the time of the inspection.
“Recruitment of staff was ongoing. The home had faced the same challenges as other providers due to the national shortage of care workers.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure staffing levels remain safe while recruitment is ongoing?
- 02How often are medicines records and staff competency checks reviewed now?
- 03What audits and checks are carried out, and how do you act when they find a problem?
- 04How are people's risk assessments reviewed when their needs or risks change?
- 05What were the ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive at the previous inspection?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led; the ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive were carried forward from the last inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 April 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.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Seacliff Care Home is rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found infection control and staff care strengths, but medicines, risk reviews and management checks were not reliable.
Inspectors visited without notice on 10 and 12 January 2022. They spoke with four people, seven relatives and 11 staff. They reviewed care records, medicines records, recruitment files and the home's management records.
The home was not always safe. Some medicines were not recorded as required, occasional medicines lacked clear staff guidance, and planned reviews of risk assessments had not always happened. Staffing was affected by sickness and recruitment, although inspectors found no impact on people.
The home had strong infection prevention and control measures. People, relatives and staff generally said people were safe, and staff understood safeguarding. However, management checks had not found the problems identified by inspectors.
The overall rating remains Requires Improvement. The home has had this rating for the last two inspections. The provider breached Regulation 17 on good governance, and CQC asked for an action plan and will check progress.
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had effective arrangements for preventing and managing infections, including safe visits, PPE and testing.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Safeguarding
Staff knew how to recognise abuse and how to report concerns. People, relatives and staff felt confident that concerns would be followed up.
“Staff knew how to recognise the signs and symptoms of abuse and who they would report concerns to both internally and externally.” from the report
Detailed care risk information
Although reviews were missed, the risk assessments gave clear instructions about people's needs and safer ways for staff to work.
“The assessments were arranged to show the care the person needed and what the risks were.” from the report
Positive relationships
Staff were proud to work at the home, and external professionals praised the management and staff's response to people's needs.
“The management team and staff were well organised, responsive to the needs of their residents and the patients reviewed were clearly looked after very well by caring and friendly staff.” from the report
Medicines records and guidance
needs fixingMedicines requiring stricter controls were stored securely but were not recorded according to the provider's policy. Staff also lacked guidance for medicines taken occasionally.
“Medicines that required stricter controls by law were stored securely but were not recorded in accordance with the providers policy.” from the report
Risk reviews
seriousPeople's risk assessments were not always reviewed as planned. Inspectors said this increased the risk of harm.
“However, reviews had not always taken place as planned. This meant that people were at an increased risk of harm.” from the report
Weak management checks
seriousAudits were not always completed or robust, and they failed to identify the medicines and risk problems. This led to a breach of Regulation 17.
“Quality assurance systems did not always operate effectively.” from the report
Unstable staffing
needs fixingSickness, rota changes and recruitment caused staffing difficulties at times. Inspectors found no impact on people, but staff morale was affected.
“Although we had not identified an impact on people, feedback we received was that staffing levels were not always stable.” from the report
Limited formal feedback
minorThe home was not actively seeking formal feedback from people and relatives to help drive improvements. A survey was planned after inspectors raised this.
“The service did not actively seek formal feedback on the service they provide from people or their relatives.” from the report
- 01How are controlled medicines now recorded, checked and audited?
- 02How are occasional medicines supported by clear written guidance for staff?
- 03How often are each resident's risk assessments reviewed, and how do you check that reviews happen on time?
- 04What formal quality assurance system has been introduced since this inspection, and can you show recent results?
- 05What is being done to stabilise staffing during sickness, rota changes and recruitment?
This inspection was planned because of the previous rating and focused on Safe, including infection control, and Well-led; no ratings were given for Effective, Caring or Responsive in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 February 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.
Every inspection of Seacliff Care Home
5 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2022Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedWell-led: Inspected but not rated
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2020Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 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
37 live-in carers within about an hour of Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole
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 £1,000 to £1,340 a week. 26 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“We could not have managed without her calm, reassuring presence and practical knowledge and skill in caring and supporting both my husband and the family and I.”
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
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.