CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Seagrave House Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Seagrave House Care Home was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found risks and medicines were not always managed safely, and quality checks were not effective.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 2 February 2021. Inspectors looked only at Safe and Well-led, following concerns about infection control, personal protective equipment and record keeping. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, and reviewed care, medicine, staffing and management records.
The home had enough staff and people generally felt safe and liked the staff. Inspectors were also assured about personal protective equipment, testing, admissions and managing infection outbreaks.
However, some risks were not identified or recorded properly. Medicines were not always given or recorded according to guidance. Cleaning records were incomplete, and quality checks had failed to find issues such as unsafe shower water temperatures and gaps in care records.
The overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection in 2018 to Requires Improvement. Safe and Well-led were both rated Requires Improvement. The other three question ratings were carried forward because they were not inspected this time.
Enough staff
Inspectors found there were enough staff to meet people's needs. Recruitment checks were also carried out safely.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Infection controls
Inspectors were assured that the home was using protective equipment safely, testing people and staff, and preparing for or managing outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Approachable staff
People liked the staff, and staff described the manager as approachable. The home held meetings so people and staff could give feedback.
“People and staff found the manager approachable.” from the report
Open response
The manager and staff were open during the inspection, and some issues were corrected immediately after inspectors raised them.
“The registered manager and staff were open, transparent and accommodating throughout our inspection.” from the report
Risks not fully assessed
seriousSome people's risks were missing from their care records or were out of date. This included risks linked to distressed behaviour, call bells, catheter care and emergency evacuation.
“Not all risk had been identified or included in risk management plans.” from the report
Medicines not always managed safely
seriousStaff did not always complete required checks or record why medicines prescribed when needed had been given. Not all staff had their medicine skills assessed.
“Staff did not always follow guidance for the safe administration of medicines.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousAudits had not identified unsafe shower temperatures, incomplete records, missing training and gaps in care plans. The inspection found a breach of the good governance regulation.
“Quality monitoring and governance processes were not effective.” from the report
Incomplete cleaning records
needs fixingRecords did not consistently show who had cleaned shared bathrooms or whether high-touch areas had been cleaned during the COVID-19 pandemic.
“Cleaning records did not provide details about who had cleaned shared bathrooms between use or if they had been cleaned.” from the report
- 01What has been changed so every person's risks, including call-bell and evacuation risks, are assessed and kept up to date?
- 02How do you check that staff complete all required medicine checks and record reasons for medicines given when needed?
- 03How many staff have now had their medicine-handling competence assessed, and what happens if someone has not passed?
- 04What action has been taken to improve audits, care records and training records?
- 05How do you now record cleaning of shared bathrooms and high-touch areas?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other ratings were carried forward from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 March 2021 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, July 2018
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, safe care, but the home needed to improve its records and management checks.
This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection on 8 May 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and health professionals. They observed care and reviewed care plans, staff files, audits, training and complaints.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. People were supported with medicines, health needs, food and personal care. Inspectors saw kind staff who respected people's choices, dignity and relationships.
The Well-led rating was Requires Improvement. Inspectors found that care was often provided well, but records did not always show what care, food support or activities people had received. Management checks had not identified these gaps.
Safe medicines and staffing
People received their medicines safely and inspectors found enough staff to support people. Staff responded quickly when people used their call bells.
“People received their medicines safely and there were adequate numbers of staff available to support people with the care they required.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff built trusting relationships, listened to people and respected their dignity, choices and personal preferences.
“People were supported by kind and compassionate staff who took time to build positive and trusting relationships with people.” from the report
Health and care support
People's health, nutrition and care needs were assessed and supported. Staff worked with outside health services when people needed extra help.
“People's care needs were appropriately assessed and people's nutritional and healthcare needs were effectively supported.” from the report
Personalised care plans
Care plans reflected people's needs and preferences and were updated when those needs changed. Staff could explain how they supported people.
“People had care plans in place which accurately reflected their care needs and these were updated when people's needs changed.” from the report
Care records were incomplete
needs fixingInspectors found that records did not always show whether people had received preferred personal care or nutritional support. This made it harder for managers to check that care matched people's needs.
“people's care records did not reflect the support people had received with their care needs.” from the report
Activity records and opportunities
needs fixingRecords for the nine care plans reviewed did not show that people had been offered activities or time for their interests. Inspectors said systems were not effective enough to make sure everyone was offered this support.
“there were ineffective systems in place to ensure that every person was offered the chance to participate in an activity or spend time pursuing an interest they enjoyed.” from the report
Some concerns about meals
minorSome people said the quality of meals could be better. A new chef had been employed and was gathering people's views about food.
“Some people commented that they felt the quality of the meals could be improved” from the report
- 01How do you now record showers, baths and other personal care that each person prefers?
- 02How do you record and follow up when someone refuses food or needs extra nutritional support?
- 03How do you make sure every person is offered activities or time to pursue their interests?
- 04What checks do managers now carry out on care records, and what happens when records are incomplete?
- 05What changes have been made to meals since the new chef was appointed, and how do you collect residents' feedback?
This was a comprehensive unannounced inspection covering all five key questions and the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 July 2018 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 Seagrave House Care Home
5 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- March 2021Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2015Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2014GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 19 December 2012.
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
89 live-in carers within about an hour of North Northamptonshire
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. 76 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
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.