CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Seahaven
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Risks were identified, but staff did not always follow guidance or report problems to management. Inspectors also found gaps in the safe management and availability of some medicines.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used for the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used for the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used for the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The management team was approachable and understood the improvements needed, but quality checks had not found important shortfalls in risk management, medicines and care plan reviews.
What inspectors found, June 2023
Seahaven is rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found caring support but gaps in risk management, medicines and oversight.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 16 May 2023. Two inspectors spoke with people, staff, relatives and visiting professionals. They reviewed care plans, risk assessments, medicines records, staff files, rotas, incidents and quality checks.
The home had enough staff and people were supported by staff who knew them well. Inspectors found kind and respectful care. People were protected from abuse, infection risks were managed, and recruitment had improved since the previous inspection.
However, staff did not always follow risk guidance or report risks to managers. There was not enough guidance for some medicines given when people were distressed. Quality checks had not found these problems or some care plans that needed updating.
The overall rating remains Requires Improvement. Safe and Well-led were both rated Requires Improvement. The other three areas were not inspected during this visit, so their previous ratings were used.
Kind and respectful care
People were treated with kindness. Staff understood people's communication needs, privacy and dignity.
“People were treated with kindness and care. Staff showed genuine affection in their approach.” from the report
Protection from abuse
Staff knew how to recognise and report abuse. Safeguarding concerns were reported and investigated.
“People were protected from the risk of abuse, harm and neglect.” from the report
Improved recruitment
The home had improved its recruitment checks since the previous inspection and was no longer in breach of that regulation.
“At this inspection improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach this regulation.” from the report
Risk guidance was not always followed
seriousStaff did not always report risks or take the required action. Inspectors found an example involving high blood sugar readings where medical advice had not been sought.
“We found that when risks had occurred, they had not been reported to management and action had not been taken to make sure people were safe.” from the report
Gaps in medicines arrangements
seriousThere was no clear guidance for some medicines given when people were upset or distressed. On some nights, not all staff could give these medicines, so people might have to wait.
“There was no guidance on how often to take the medicine and what action to take if the medicines had not been effective.” from the report
Checks did not find problems
needs fixingQuality checks had not identified the risk and medicines shortfalls. Some care plans had also not been reviewed and updated.
“Management quality assurance checks of key areas of the service had been completed but they had not identified the shortfalls found at this inspection.” from the report
No registered manager in post
needs fixingThere was no registered manager when inspectors visited. The deputy manager was running the home day to day while the provider recruited a new manager.
“At the time of the inspection the service did not have a registered manager in post.” from the report
Independence could be encouraged more
minorStaff sometimes did tasks for people instead of supporting them to take part, such as washing and putting away clothes.
“We did find that sometimes staff did things for people when they could have done activities with them.” from the report
- 01What has changed so staff consistently follow risk assessments and report concerns, including changes in blood sugar or weight?
- 02What written guidance is now in place for medicines given when someone is upset or distressed?
- 03How will people receive these medicines promptly at night if the usual staff are not trained to administer them?
- 04Has a new registered manager been appointed, and how will the provider oversee the home until registration is complete?
- 05How are quality checks now testing medicines, risk management and care plan reviews?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, including infection prevention and control; the other three key question ratings were carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 June 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, January 2022
Requires Improvement; inspectors found important safety and management improvements, but some risk guidance was still not personalised enough.
This was an unannounced targeted inspection on 1 December 2021. Inspectors checked safety, management and infection control. They spoke with four people using the home, seven staff members and one visiting professional.
Inspectors found that risks were being assessed and managed more safely. Safeguarding arrangements had improved, infection control was effective, and accidents and incidents were reviewed. People said they felt safe.
Some risk assessments still did not give clear, step-by-step instructions for staff. The overall rating stayed Requires Improvement because this inspection did not review every part of the service. Safe and well-led were inspected but not rated.
Risk management
Risks were assessed, recorded and reviewed. Staff knew people well and knew how to support them safely.
“Risks to people, including risks from the environment were assessed, monitored and recorded. Action was taken to reduce the risks.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had measures in place for preventing and managing infections, including COVID-19.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Safeguarding
The home was no longer in breach of the safeguarding regulation. Staff knew how to recognise and report abuse, and people said they felt safe.
“People were protected from abuse and improper treatment.” from the report
Improved leadership
A new senior management team and electronic care system were helping the home identify problems and act on them.
“The service was consistently managed and well-led. Risks were monitored and mitigated. The quality of the service was checked.” from the report
Risk plans need more detail
needs fixingSome risk assessments did not explain clearly enough what staff should do, step by step, if a risk occurred. This could mean staff did not all respond in the same way.
“However, some risk assessments did not include full step by step guidance for staff on what action to take if the risks occurred.” from the report
Overall rating remains Requires Improvement
needs fixingThe home had improved since the previous inspection, but the overall rating did not change. This visit only checked specific concerns and did not provide a full assessment.
“The overall rating for the service has not changed following this targeted inspection and remains requires improvement.” from the report
- 01Have all risk assessments now been updated with clear, step-by-step instructions for staff?
- 02How do you check that every staff member understands the latest risk guidance?
- 03What changes were made after the previous breaches of Regulations 12, 13 and 17?
- 04How are accidents, incidents and patterns of behaviour reviewed, and how are lessons shared with staff?
- 05What are the current plans and timescales for improving the home's overall Requires Improvement rating?
This was a targeted inspection of specific concerns about Safe and Well-led, plus infection control; it did not assess the full five key questions, so the Safe and Well-led ratings were not changed or re-rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 January 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 Seahaven
5 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- June 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2022Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Inspected but not ratedWell-led: Inspected but not rated
- May 2021Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Kent
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. 33 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
“Irene was a very kind and empathetic carer who knew just the right words to say to put a smile on my face.”
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.