CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Seale Pastures House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment and good safeguarding knowledge. Medicines were given as prescribed, but records for medicines started part-way through a cycle needed improvement.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received suitable food, drinks and health support. Staff were trained and supported choice and lawful best-interest decisions, although inspectors did not find evidence of pre-admission assessments.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit, so no new rating was given.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit, so no new rating was given.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The home had not always notified CQC about relevant incidents. Fire safety actions were incomplete, call bell audits were not in place, and some relatives did not know how to raise concerns.
What inspectors found, April 2023
Seale Pastures House is rated Good; inspectors found safe, effective care but improvements were needed in leadership, fire safety and records.
This was an unannounced inspection on 02 February 2023. Inspectors spoke with 8 people, 4 relatives and 13 staff. They reviewed care, medicines, staffing and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Effective. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines support, suitable training and caring interactions. People’s food, drink and health needs were supported, and staff followed mental capacity rules.
Well-led was rated Requires Improvement. The home had not always told CQC about relevant incidents. Fire safety work was still unfinished, medicines records needed improvement, and there was no call bell audit. Some relatives were also unclear about how to complain.
The overall rating stayed Good. This was because the inspection did not cover all five key questions. Caring and Responsive were not inspected, and their previous ratings were used when calculating the overall rating.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people’s needs. The home used a dependency tool and kept a stable group of agency staff.
“At the time of our inspection, there was enough staff on duty to meet people's needs.” from the report
Safe care
Staff understood safeguarding and risk management. Inspectors saw staff use mobility equipment safely and found people received their medicines as prescribed.
“People received safe care at Seale Pastures House.” from the report
Kind interactions
Staff had the skills and experience to meet people’s needs. Inspectors saw staff respond in a timely and respectful way.
“We observed caring interactions from staff. They took their time to respond to people's needs in a timely and respectful manner.” from the report
Food and health support
People had a range of meals, drinks and snacks. Staff supported special dietary needs and referred people to health services when needed.
“People's nutritional needs were met. They had access to a variety of meals, drinks and snacks which helped them to maintain a balanced diet.” from the report
Fire safety work unfinished
seriousWork to address fire and safety recommendations was still in progress. Inspectors said it needed to be completed to reduce the risk of harm from fire.
“Work was still in progress at the time of our visit to meet the recommendations of the fire service and ensure the risk of fire incidents were mitigated.” from the report
Medicines records
needs fixingRecords for medicines started part-way through a medicines cycle did not always contain all the information staff needed. CQC recommended more consistent recording.
“We found the need for improvement in MARs for medicines commenced mid cycle as there was a risk that staff did not have all the information they needed to provide people's medicines safely.” from the report
Incident reporting
needs fixingThe registered manager had not always notified CQC about relevant incidents. This was a management and regulatory shortfall.
“The registered manager did not always notify the Care Quality Commission of relevant incidents at the service.” from the report
Call bell checks
needs fixingManagement checks did not include oversight of how quickly staff responded to people’s needs. CQC recommended adding call bell audits.
“We recommend the registered manager add call bell audits to their quality assurance systems as an additional tool for ensuring adequacy of staffing levels and deployment were suited to meet people's needs in a safe and timely manner.” from the report
Raising concerns
minorRelatives gave mixed feedback about access to the manager and how to complain. At least one relative did not know who to contact.
“I wouldn't [know who to complain to] because there's never anyone there [in office]. I haven't met the manager and I come most weeks.” from the report
- 01What fire safety recommendations were still outstanding after the inspection, and have they now been completed?
- 02How are medicines started part-way through a medicines cycle recorded and checked now?
- 03How do you audit call bell response times and use the results to adjust staffing?
- 04Who should relatives contact with a complaint, and how can they speak to the registered manager?
- 05How do you make sure all incidents that must be reported to CQC are notified promptly?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not inspected, so their previous ratings carried over when calculating the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 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, November 2020
Seale Pastures House was inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control arrangements were safe.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 27 October 2020. It followed concerns about infection prevention and control.
Inspectors found good practice in the use of personal protective equipment, cleaning, visitor checks, social distancing and infection control records.
The home had an up-to-date infection control policy. Staff received regular updates, and people were given information about COVID-19 and the safety measures in place.
The service was inspected but not rated. This visit looked at infection prevention and control, rather than the full quality of care.
PPE use
Staff had training in using PPE. Inspectors saw that it was available and used in line with current guidance.
“Staff had received training in the use of personal protective equipment (PPE), and we saw this was accessible throughout the home and staff used it in accordance with the most up to date guidance.” from the report
Visitor controls
The home had a visitor process with risk assessments, temperature checks and PPE. At the time, visits were taking place through windows.
“There was a clear process for visitors, which included a risk assessment, temperature check and the wearing of PPE.” from the report
Cleaning and policy
Cleaning of frequently touched surfaces had increased. Inspectors also reviewed an up-to-date infection control policy and related audits.
“Cleaning schedules had been increased to ensure touch surfaces were cleaned regularly and additional cleaning to maintain good hygiene standards.” from the report
Communication
People were given information about COVID-19 and restrictions through meetings and a notice board. Staff received new guidance through daily meetings.
“Regular meetings were held with people using the service to support their understanding of Covid and the measures in place.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What visitor arrangements are in place now, including any risk assessments, temperature checks and PPE requirements?
- 02How are people using the service and staff being tested for infections?
- 03How often are touch surfaces cleaned, and how do you check that cleaning standards are maintained?
- 04How are residents kept informed when infection control guidance or local restrictions change?
- 05How is new infection control guidance shared with staff?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control following concerns; the service was inspected but not rated and the other areas of care were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 November 2020 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 Seale Pastures House
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- March 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 November 2011.
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
62 live-in carers within about an hour of Derbyshire
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 £1,010 to £1,260 a week. 51 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
“We particularly appreciate the companionship Dawn gives in the evenings when she plays cards and Scrabble with my mother.”
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.