CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Seaview
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, December 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, but staffing levels needed attention during the visit.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 14 November 2019. One inspector spoke with three people, one relative and five staff. They reviewed care records, medicine records, staff files and records about incidents, health care and management.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they were happy and felt safe. Inspectors found that medicines, risks, training, care planning and complaints were generally managed well.
Inspectors did raise concerns about some staff working long shifts without breaks because there were not enough staff. The home arranged extra staff and agency cover after the inspection. Some other gaps had also been identified and were put right or planned for, including end of life plans and one missing record of a best-interest decision.
Kind and respectful staff
People said they were happy, and inspectors saw staff respecting privacy, dignity and people's ways of communicating.
“People told us that they were happy living at the service. One person said, "The staff look after me nicely. I like living here.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans described people's preferences and support needs. People were involved in reviews and supported to make choices and build independence.
“People were involved in decisions about their care and were supported to make choices.” from the report
Good medicine management
Inspectors found medicines were ordered, stored and recorded safely. Staff understood how each person preferred to take their medicines.
“People continued to receive their medicine on time and as prescribed.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were supported to take part in activities they enjoyed, use community facilities and maintain important relationships.
“Activities were personalised, and people went out alone with staff support or in small groups if they chose to do so.” from the report
Staffing during the inspection
seriousInspectors found that some staff were working significant numbers of long shifts without breaks because there were not enough staff. The home arranged staff from other services and agency cover after the inspection.
“During the inspection we raised concerns as some staff were working a significant number of long shifts without a break as there were not enough staff at the service.” from the report
End of life planning
needs fixingNo end of life care plans were in place during the inspection. The manager had already identified this and sent plans after the inspection.
“There were no end of life care plans in place. However, the registered manager had already identified this concern prior to the inspection and plans were sent to us after the inspection.” from the report
One missing decision record
minorOne decision made in a person's best interests had not been recorded at the time of inspection. This was resolved immediately afterwards and discussed with the relevant people.
“One decision had not been recorded, however this was resolved immediately after the inspection and had been discussed with relevant people.” from the report
- 01What staffing levels are in place now, and how do you prevent staff working long shifts without breaks?
- 02Have end of life care plans now been completed for everyone who may need them?
- 03How are people's best-interest decisions recorded and checked?
- 04What learning-based activities and daily living skills support are currently available?
- 05How will you support my relative's communication needs, choices and independence?
This was an unannounced inspection covering the care home, the care provided and all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 December 2019 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, May 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some checks needing closer follow-up.
This was an unannounced inspection on 8 March 2017. The inspector spoke with people living at the home, staff, a visitor, a relative and health professionals. They also observed care and checked support plans, risk assessments, medicines records, recruitment files and quality checks.
The home supported up to seven people with learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorder. Four people were living there at the inspection. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines processes, suitable risk assessments and good support with health, food and everyday choices.
People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Care plans were personal and detailed. People were supported to take part in activities, work towards their goals and make complaints. The home was rated Good in all five areas and overall. It had also been rated Good at the previous inspection in July 2014.
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Medicines were administered by trained staff and checked through regular audits.
“There were safe processes for storing, administering and returning medicines.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People appeared comfortable with staff and were treated as equals. Staff supported privacy, dignity and independence.
“People were always spoken with in a dignified and respectful manner, it was apparent that people felt confident and comfortable in their home and that the staff were easily approachable.” from the report
Personalised support
Support plans explained people's communication, needs, preferences and goals in detail. Staff could describe how they supported each person.
“Care plans were meaningful and contained specific detail so staff could understand people better.” from the report
Activities and choices
People were supported to choose meals, activities and trips. Staff helped people work towards personal aims, including community activities and employment.
“People were offered opportunities to pursue personal interest, hobbies and educational experiences outside of the service.” from the report
Manager registration was in progress
minorThe registered manager had left shortly before the inspection. The deputy manager was running the home and had started applying to become registered.
“Although the manager was not registered with The Commission they had started the process of applying for their registration.” from the report
Some checks had been missed
needs fixingAn internal audit found that some people's weights had not been checked monthly when required. It also found that fire drills had not happened at least every six months. The report says action had been taken.
“The audit conducted during February 2017 had highlighted that people's weights had not been monitored each month when this had been highlighted as an individual need and fire drills had not been undertaken at a minimum of six monthly intervals.” from the report
- 01Has the manager's registration with the Commission now been completed, and who is responsible for the home while this is being processed?
- 02How are people's weights monitored now when this is identified as an individual need?
- 03How do you make sure fire drills happen at least every six months and that the results are recorded?
- 04How are medicines audits and staff competency checks carried out, and what happens if an error is found?
- 05How are people's personal goals, activities and support plans reviewed with them and updated?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service and all five question areas, including care, records, staffing, medicines and quality checks. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 May 2017 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 Seaview
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 April 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
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.