CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Seaton Hall Residential Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, January 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control arrangements were safe.
The home provides residential care for up to 29 older people. At the inspection, 21 people were living there.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 16 December 2020. It looked at infection prevention and control because of coronavirus outbreaks in care homes.
Inspectors found good supplies of protective equipment, safer visiting arrangements, social distancing measures and effective hand hygiene and protective equipment use. They were assured that the home was managing infection risks, testing, admissions and outbreaks.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give an overall quality rating or a full set of ratings for all five areas of care.
Protective equipment
Protective equipment was available throughout the home, and waste bins were positioned so staff could use them when needed.
“The home had good supplies of personal protective equipment (PPE) that were readily available in stations throughout the home.” from the report
Safer visiting
Visitors had temperature checks and completed a health questionnaire. The home had a separate room with protective screens for visits.
“Visitors completed temperature checks and a health questionnaire on arrival.” from the report
Staff practice
Inspectors found that staff were competent in hand hygiene and using protective equipment. Infection prevention and control training had also been provided.
“A senior member of staff observed staff were competent with hand hygiene and PPE use.” from the report
Staff support
Staff said they received daily support if they had to isolate and help to return to work safely.
“Staff felt supported by the registered manager and the provider.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are protective equipment supplies checked and kept available now?
- 02How are visitors currently screened and supported to visit safely?
- 03How do you test people living here and staff when needed?
- 04Who are the infection prevention and control champions, and how do they share good practice?
- 05How do you prevent and manage an infection outbreak?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control practices only; the service was inspected but not rated and the other four questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 January 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, April 2018
Seaton Hall Residential Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, with minor record-keeping improvements needed.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 6 March 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, family members, staff and managers. They observed care, checked care records, staff files, medicines and quality records.
The home was rated Good overall and was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicine arrangements, suitable care plans and kind, respectful care.
The home had improved since the previous inspection in January 2017, when it was rated Requires improvement. The earlier concerns about governance, notifications and inaccurate information had been addressed. Inspectors still recommended recording which identity documents had been checked for new staff and documenting the provider's monthly visits.
Safe care and medicines
Risk assessments, accident checks and safety checks were in place. Medicines were securely stored, audited and recorded accurately.
“Medication administration records (MARs) we saw were accurate and up to date.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw staff communicate calmly and support people's dignity, comfort and independence.
“Our observations confirmed staff treated people with dignity and respect” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's histories, preferences, communication needs and choices. People and families were involved in writing them.
“The care records were person centred, which means the person was at the centre of any care or support plans” from the report
Activities and community links
People could choose whether to join activities, including baking, games and reminiscence sessions. The home also supported visits and trips into the local community.
“The home had a full programme of activities in place for people who used the service.” from the report
Improvement since the last inspection
The home had addressed the governance concerns found in January 2017. Its notifications and published information had also been corrected.
“At this inspection we found improvements had been made in all the areas identified at the previous inspection.” from the report
Identity-check records
needs fixingThe home checked staff identity documents, but did not record exactly which documents had been checked. Inspectors made a recommendation to improve this.
“However, these were visually checked and details of what was actually checked was not recorded in the staff files.” from the report
Provider visit records
minorThe provider visited monthly and carried out walk-arounds, but these visits were not recorded. Inspectors recommended documenting them as evidence of the auditing process.
“However, these visits were not recorded.” from the report
- 01How do you now record which identity documents have been checked when recruiting staff?
- 02How are the provider's monthly visits and walk-arounds recorded, and can families see the resulting actions?
- 03How do you calculate staffing levels for a resident's individual needs?
- 04How would you involve my relative and our family in creating and reviewing their personal care profile?
- 05What activities and community visits would be suitable if my relative chose not to join the main group activities?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall quality of the home, including care, premises, records, staff files, medicines and management systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 April 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 Seaton Hall Residential Home
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Seaton Hall Residential Home →
- April 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Seaton Hall Residential Home →
- March 2017Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2015Inspected but not ratedResponsive: Inspected but not rated
- January 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 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
43 live-in carers within about an hour of Hartlepool
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 £970 to £1,120 a week. 40 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“I found Alison to be kind , caring helpful concencious... Alison has a heart of gold”
“Petty introduced herself to Mum every time she was caring for her and responded very quickly to Mum if she was distressed in the night.”
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.