CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Seaview Residential Home Limited
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, clear risk assessments, safe medicines systems and a clean, well-maintained environment.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff were trained and supported, and people's health, nutrition and hydration needs were assessed. The home worked with health professionals and followed the Mental Capacity Act principles.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. People were offered choices, involved in their care and encouraged to remain as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed, person-centred and reviewed monthly. People were offered a range of activities, and the home had systems for listening to concerns and handling complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found an open and supportive culture, clear management arrangements and regular checks on quality and safety. People, relatives, staff and outside professionals spoke positively about the leadership.
What inspectors found, March 2019
Seaview Residential Home Limited was rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and well-organised care, with no major concerns reported.
Inspectors visited without notice on 4 and 6 March 2019. They spoke with seven people, eight relatives, the manager, five staff members and two outside health and social care professionals. They also checked care records, staff files, accident and complaint records, and quality checks.
The home was caring for 15 people, including some people with dementia, and was registered for up to 18 people. Inspectors found enough safely recruited staff, safe medicines systems, clear care plans and suitable support with food, drink and healthcare.
People and relatives said staff were kind and that people felt safe. Inspectors also found that people were treated with dignity, involved in decisions, and offered activities suited to their interests. All five areas were rated Good.
The home had been rated Requires Improvement at the previous full comprehensive inspection, published on 23 April 2018. This inspection found improvement to Good in every area, and the report said no follow-up was required.
People felt safe
People and relatives said they felt safe. Inspectors found safeguarding systems, clear risk assessments and enough staff to meet people's needs.
“People told us they felt safe and secure living at Seaview Residential Home.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff built positive relationships with people and supported their dignity, privacy, choices and independence.
“Throughout the inspection, we observed consistently supportive and caring interactions between staff and people.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans gave staff clear guidance about people's needs, routines, preferences and wishes. The plans were reviewed and updated when needs changed.
“These were used to develop detailed and person-centred care plans for each person.” from the report
Good activities and choice
People could take part in varied activities, including music, quizzes, exercises, visits and links with a nursery school. Staff respected people's decisions if they did not want to join in.
“People were provided with the opportunity to participate in a range of activities, including: bingo, quizzes, chair exercises, singing, live music and visits from a therapy dog.” from the report
Improved rating
The home improved from Requires Improvement at the previous full comprehensive inspection to Good in all five areas at this inspection.
“The service was rated as Requires Improvement at the last full comprehensive inspection, the report for which was published on 23 April 2018.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you assess and update my relative's care plan if their needs or risks changed?
- 02How do you make sure there are enough staff when the home is close to full?
- 03What activities would suit my relative's interests, and how do you support people who choose not to take part?
- 04How do you support people with dementia to make choices and remain as independent as possible?
- 05How would you involve our family in decisions about care, health appointments and end-of-life wishes?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, and inspectors looked at both the care provided and the home premises. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 March 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, April 2018
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but identified infection-control, risk-recording and oversight shortfalls.
This was an unannounced inspection on 27 February and 7 March 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, family members, staff and health and social care professionals. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines, staff records, accident records and quality checks.
The home was rated Good for caring and responsive care. Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff knew people well, supported individual preferences and provided activities. People were supported with food, drink, medicines and healthcare.
The home was rated Requires Improvement overall, and also for safe, effective and well-led care. The laundry was unclean and poorly maintained, some risks were not followed up properly, some mental capacity records and staff training were out of date, and audits did not identify important problems. The home was not meeting Regulation 12 on safe care and treatment.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw positive and supportive interactions. Staff protected people's privacy and dignity and encouraged independence.
“People were cared for with dignity and respect and all interactions we observed between people and staff were positive and supportive.” from the report
Personalised support
Staff knew people well and supported their choices, routines and relationships. Families were involved in care planning and updates.
“Staff knew people well and demonstrated an in-depth knowledge of their individual needs.” from the report
Activities and stimulation
The home provided group and individual activities, including crafts, cooking, reminiscence, music and exercises.
“People were provided with appropriate mental and physical stimulation through a range of varied activities.” from the report
Safe medicines support
Staff were trained and assessed as competent to give medicines. Records had no gaps, and staff respected people's choices.
“Medicines administration records (MAR) were completed correctly. The MAR chart provides a record of which medicines are prescribed to a person and when they were given.” from the report
Laundry and infection control
seriousThe laundry was dirty, cluttered and in poor repair. There was no clear process to keep dirty and clean laundry separate, increasing the risk of cross infection.
“The laundry area was not properly maintained, in a poor state of repair, was unclean and cluttered.” from the report
Accident follow-up
seriousAccidents and near misses were recorded, but the causes and actions needed to prevent them happening again were not always properly considered or followed through.
“Actions required to mitigate risks or prevent reoccurrence had not always been considered, followed up or implemented.” from the report
Mental capacity records
needs fixingAt least one person's capacity assessment and best-interest decision-making records were not complete or up to date.
“People's capacity to make decisions had not always been assessed in line with The Mental Capacity Act 2005.” from the report
Overdue staff training
needs fixingSome staff did not have current infection-control training, and one person's fire training had expired.
“Training had not always been updated in a timely way.” from the report
Weak quality checks
needs fixingSome audits failed to identify the problems found during the inspection. This meant issues were not always acted on promptly.
“The manager used a number of audits to check the quality and safety of the service, however these were not always robust in identifying concerns.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to the laundry since the inspection, and how do you now keep dirty and clean laundry separate?
- 02How do you make sure accidents, falls and near misses are investigated and that agreed actions are completed?
- 03Are all residents' mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions now complete and up to date?
- 04Are all staff's infection-control, fire safety and other essential refresher training records current?
- 05Who is responsible for managing the home now, and has the manager's application to become registered been completed?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including care observations, seven people's care records, staffing, medicines, accidents, complaints and quality checks; the previous inspection was in August 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 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 Seaview Residential Home Limited
3 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2019Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Seaview Residential Home Limited →
- April 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Seaview Residential Home Limited →
- November 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 11 January 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
47 live-in carers within about an hour of Portsmouth
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 £1,240 a week. 38 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
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.