CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Seacroft Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, September 2023
Seacroft Court was rated Inadequate and placed in special measures; inspectors found serious failures in safety, safeguarding and management.
This was an unannounced inspection on 12 July 2023. Two inspectors spoke with people, staff and managers. They examined six care records and records about staffing, training, medicines and quality checks.
Inspectors found people were at risk of avoidable harm. Risks linked to behaviour, accidents and incidents were not properly assessed or managed. Restrictive practices were used without suitable plans or records, and some incidents were not reported to the right organisations.
Leadership and quality monitoring were also rated Inadequate. The provider had not made the improvements promised after the previous Requires Improvement rating, which had been given at the last four inspections. The home was placed in special measures, meaning CQC will keep it under review and normally re-inspect within six months.
Medicines
Inspectors found medicines were managed safely. Records were completed correctly and staff had the required training.
“Medicines were managed safely. We found the use of antipsychotics had been assessed and managed appropriately.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that infection risks, protective equipment and outbreaks were being managed effectively.
“We were assured that the provider was responding effectively to risks and signs of infection.” from the report
Visiting
The report recorded no concerns about visits to the home.
“We have no concerns with visiting at the care home.” from the report
Poor risk planning
seriousMany risks were not properly assessed, monitored or managed. Inspectors found incidents had led to injuries, property damage and repeated risks.
“The provider failed to assess, manage and monitor risks relating to risk management, accident and incidents and behaviour management.” from the report
Restrictive practices
seriousPeople were subjected to restrictive practices without suitable care plans, risk assessments or records. Inspectors also found language suggesting a controlling approach to people's distressed behaviour.
“We found restrictive practices were used for people limiting their freedoms.” from the report
Safeguarding failures
seriousStaff and managers had safeguarding training but did not know how to recognise and report abuse. Incidents of a safeguarding nature had not been reported to relevant professional bodies.
“Systems were not robust enough to demonstrate people were safeguarded, this placed people at risk of harm.” from the report
No learning from incidents
seriousIncidents were not consistently reviewed, referred or used to update care plans. This meant similar incidents happened again and became more serious.
“There was no evidence of learning from incidents. Documents showed there were 91 incidents of distressed behaviour involving one person.” from the report
Weak leadership
seriousQuality monitoring did not identify serious problems in care, safeguarding or behaviour management. The provider had also failed to make promised improvements after earlier inspections.
“Systems were either not in place or robust enough to assess and monitor the quality of the service.” from the report
- 01What current risk assessments and care plans are in place for people who may become distressed or behave in ways that could harm themselves or others?
- 02How are restrictive practices prevented, authorised, recorded and reviewed, and how do you make sure staff use the least restrictive approach?
- 03How are safeguarding concerns, accidents and incidents reported to the relevant organisations and reviewed for learning?
- 04What evidence can you show that the problems identified in this inspection have been corrected and that staff understand their behaviour support training?
- 05How do managers check that the home only admits people whose needs can be safely met?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, including infection prevention and control; the report did not give new ratings for Effective, Caring or Responsive. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 September 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, April 2023
Seacroft Court Nursing Home was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found safe care but weak systems for improving quality and personalising people's care.
This was an unannounced inspection on 14 December 2022. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, a family member, a visitor and staff. They observed care and checked care, medicines and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe. Inspectors found that risks were assessed, medicines were managed safely, staff were trained and recruitment checks were completed. Infection prevention arrangements were also satisfactory. However, people said staff did not always respond to bells immediately, and there had been concerns about staffing levels.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Well-led. People's clothing was not always returned correctly, bedrooms were not always personalised and the lounge layout did not support friendship groups well. The home had received Requires Improvement at the previous three inspections, and inspectors found that its systems had not embedded lasting improvements.
The overall rating remained Requires Improvement. The provider had recruited more staff and housekeeping staff, and the regulator said it would monitor progress and meet the provider to discuss improvements.
Risk management
Risks were recorded in care plans and action was taken after incidents, including falls. Staff also worked with health and social care professionals when needed.
“Risks were identified in people's care plans and care was put into place to keep people safe.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were available when needed. Staff received training and their competence was checked.
“Medicines were safely managed and available to people when needed.” from the report
Staff checks and training
Staff had training in safeguarding and safe care. Recruitment included references and Disclosure and Barring Service checks before staff started work.
“Recruitment processes ensured that staff were safe to work at the home.” from the report
Infection prevention
Inspectors were assured about the home's infection prevention arrangements, including hygiene, personal protective equipment and managing infection risks.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Slow responses to bells
needs fixingSome people said staff did not always attend to them immediately. The manager knew about staffing concerns and had recruited more staff.
“People raised concerns that staff did not always respond to the bell immediately.” from the report
Laundry and personalisation
needs fixingClothes were not always returned to the correct person. Bedrooms did not always reflect people's lives and interests, and the lounge layout made it harder for people to sit together.
“People's dignity and individuality was not always supported.” from the report
Cleaning
needs fixingAlthough the home was mainly clean, inspectors found that some areas needing cleaning had not received enough attention. More housekeeping staff had been employed.
“In addition, attention had not been paid to all areas of the home which needed cleaning.” from the report
Weak improvement systems
seriousThe provider had audits and had identified some of the problems, but the systems had not secured lasting improvement. Inspectors said this placed people at risk of receiving poor care.
“Systems had not been established to drive improvements in the home This placed people at risk of receiving a poor standard of care.” from the report
- 01What evidence can you show that clothes are now returned to the correct person every time?
- 02How do you make sure each person's bedroom reflects their life, interests and preferences?
- 03What has changed to ensure bells are answered promptly, and how do you monitor response times?
- 04Which areas needed extra cleaning at the inspection, and how do you check that cleaning now remains consistent?
- 05What actions have been taken to address the Regulation 17(1) breach and prevent another Requires Improvement rating?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led following concerns about infection control and staffing; the other three key question ratings were not given in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 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.
Every inspection of Seacroft Court
7 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has slipped, from Requires improvement to Inadequate.
- September 2023Inadequatecurrent ratingdown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- April 2023Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2021Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2020Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 January 2014.
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
9 live-in carers within about an hour of Lincolnshire
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.
8 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Martin was more than a carer, he managed the home and became my uncle's best friend, enriching his life during his last few years.”
“Magda was always positive and proactive about trying new things to keep dad busy. She also introduced new ideas for keeping dad healthy.”
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.