CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Seaview Haven
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 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found major improvements since the previous Inadequate rating, with a few medicines, call-bell and activities issues still to monitor.
This was an unannounced, focused inspection on 25 November 2021. Inspectors spoke with five people, ten relatives and eleven staff. They reviewed care records, medicine records, staff files and management records, and sought further information after the visit.
The home was rated Good overall, and Good for Safe, Effective and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safer safeguarding and risk systems, improved infection control, suitable training, clearer care plans and stronger management oversight. People were described as receiving kind and respectful support.
There were still some smaller issues. A person could not reach a call bell in one lounge area. A few medicine chart entries lacked a second check, and some refrigerator temperature records were just outside the required range without action being recorded. Activities were limited while the home recruited an activities assistant.
The previous inspection, published on 11 March 2021, rated the home Inadequate and found multiple breaches. Inspectors found that the breaches had been addressed. The home was removed from Special Measures and was no longer in breach of the regulations mentioned in the previous report.
Improved safety systems
Safeguarding, risk assessments, infection control and accident reviews had been strengthened since the previous inspection.
“Robust infection control and prevention measures had been put in place immediately since the last inspection.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw staff supporting people calmly and respectfully. People and relatives generally spoke positively about the care.
“Staff were calm, kind and respectful of people.” from the report
Better care planning
Care plans had been rewritten with information about people's needs, choices, health conditions and desired outcomes.
“People's care plans had all been re-written since the last inspection using the electronic system.” from the report
Stronger management
New senior roles, regular audits and improved staff communication gave the home clearer oversight of quality and safety.
“There was a new comprehensive quality assurance system devised immediately after the previous inspection with consistent oversight by the Director of Care who worked on site.” from the report
Call-bell access
needs fixingOne person in a lounge could not reach a call bell, so inspectors had to call for help. Management said this area would be assessed.
“One person sat in the middle of the lounge had no access to a call-bell, so we had to call for assistance.” from the report
Medicine chart checks
minorA few handwritten medicine changes had not been checked by a second staff member. The issue was raised and addressed during the inspection.
“However, there were a few entries we saw which had not been checked by a second staff member.” from the report
Medicine refrigerator records
needs fixingThe upstairs medicine refrigerator was recorded as just outside the required maximum temperature on a few occasions, without action being recorded.
“for the upstairs refrigerator there were a few occasions where the maximum was recorded as being just outside of the required range with no action recorded.” from the report
Limited activities
minorActivities were limited during the inspection while the home recruited a new activities assistant. Inspectors also discussed monitoring wellbeing and social activities more individually.
“during the inspection activities were limited as the service was recruiting a new activity assistant.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that every person can reach a call bell wherever they sit?
- 02What action is taken when a medicine refrigerator temperature is outside the required range?
- 03How do you make sure all handwritten medicine changes receive the required second check?
- 04Has the activities assistant been recruited, and how are each person's social and wellbeing needs now monitored?
- 05How have the new management audits and quality systems been maintained since the November 2021 inspection?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led, including infection prevention and control; Caring and Responsive were not covered by this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 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.
What inspectors found, April 2021
Rated Inadequate and placed in special measures; inspectors found serious risks involving care plans, infection control, medicines, staffing and management.
This was a focused inspection after concerns about staffing, risks and safe care. Inspectors visited on 19 January and 2 February 2021. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals, observed care and checked records.
Inspectors found people were at risk because individual care plans and risk assessments were missing or out of date. Infection control was poor, medicines were not always managed safely, and there were not always enough suitably trained staff. Important information was not always handed over or recorded.
The home had good communication with community health professionals. Relatives also spoke positively about care staff. However, the overall rating fell from Good at the last rated inspection to Inadequate. Safe and well-led were rated Inadequate, while effective was rated Requires Improvement.
The home was placed in special measures. The provider sent an action plan and had started some improvements, but CQC said it would continue monitoring the home and return to inspect it.
Health professional communication
People could access healthcare professionals when needed. Community health professionals reported good communication and partnership working.
“People had access to healthcare professionals who told us they had good communication with the service.” from the report
Safe recruitment
The home carried out checks on staff suitability, including employment history, references and criminal convictions.
“Staff were recruited safely. Checks were made on staff members suitability, such as employment history, references and criminal convictions.” from the report
Positive staff relationships
Relatives gave positive feedback about care staff and how they supported family members during the pandemic.
“Relatives spoke positively about the care staff and how they supported their family members, particularly during the pandemic.” from the report
Food choices
People had a choice of food, and inspectors found the menus varied and nutritious. Food was home cooked.
“The menu plans showed food was varied and nutritious. Food was home cooked and looked very appealing.” from the report
Missing care plans and risk assessments
seriousThere were no current care plans or risk assessments for people across the home. This left staff without clear guidance about people's needs and how to manage risks such as choking, falls and behaviour that may challenge.
“We found no risk assessments or care plans were being used to manage people's current individual needs.” from the report
Poor infection control
seriousInspectors found widespread infection control failures during the COVID-19 pandemic. Equipment and hoist slings were not cleaned safely, PPE was used incorrectly and social distancing was limited.
“At this inspection we found widespread failings throughout the service with regards to infection prevention and control practices” from the report
Unsafe medicines management
seriousMedicine records and audits were incomplete. Some as-needed medicines lacked clear instructions, controlled medicines were not checked weekly, and storage temperatures were not recorded.
“Medicines were not always managed safely which put people at risk.” from the report
Not enough trained staff
seriousStaffing levels were not always sufficient, especially on the third floor and at night. New staff had limited induction, and some staff had gaps in training and supervision.
“There were not always enough staff on duty at the home and staff were not always effectively deployed.” from the report
Weak management oversight
seriousThere had been repeated changes in managers and no registered manager was in place. The provider had not identified or dealt with important safety and quality problems.
“There were widespread and significant shortfalls in the way the service was led.” from the report
Poor communication with families
needs fixingRelatives said they were not kept updated during the pandemic. Meetings did not take place, activities had stopped and there was no activities organiser.
“Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the provider had not ensured people visiting, working or living at the home were updated, asked for their views or reassured about the running of the service.” from the report
- 01Are every resident's care plan and risk assessments now complete, current and available to all staff?
- 02What checks now confirm that medicines, including as-needed medicines, are given and recorded safely?
- 03How many staff are on each floor and each night shift, and how do you ensure they have the right training and supervision?
- 04What practical infection control measures are now in place for PPE, cleaning equipment, hoist slings and visitors?
- 05What progress has been made under the CQC registration conditions and action plan, and when was the last review or re-inspection?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led only; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and previous ratings for those questions were used in calculating the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 April 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.
Every inspection of Seaview Haven
4 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- January 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from InadequateSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2021InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- October 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not ratedWell-led: Inspected but not rated
- July 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2018Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 31 October 2017.
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
17 live-in carers within about an hour of Devon
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 £1,020 to £1,270 a week. 15 can care for a couple. 13 years' experience on average.
“She is such a warm and gentle person while being professional and competent at the same time.”
“She looked after my mum, who can be incredibly challenging, so well and so gently, and we always felt confident that my mum was getting the best care available.”
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.