CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Seaview
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Risk assessments, safeguarding procedures, medicines records and safety checks were in place. Inspectors also found staffing levels were higher than required to support people safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had relevant skills, experience and training. People's needs were assessed, healthcare professionals were involved, and staff supported people with food, drink, health and decision-making.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, patience, dignity and respect. They knew people well and supported them to express their views and remain as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's preferences and were reviewed when needs changed. The home supported activities, family and community links, and responded to complaints promptly.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Managers used audits, meetings and action plans to monitor quality and improve care. Inspectors found a strong person-centred culture and said the previous inspection's shortfalls had been addressed.
What inspectors found, May 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements since the previous Requires Improvement rating.
Inspectors visited unannounced on 11 April 2019. They reviewed care records, staff files, policies and safety records. They spoke with people living there, relatives, staff, managers and a healthcare professional.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that medicines were managed safely, staffing levels were higher than required, and the home was exceptionally clean and tidy.
People received personalised care and were supported to make choices, stay as independent as possible and take part in activities. Staff were described as kind, patient and respectful, and worked with healthcare professionals to support people's health.
The home had improved since the previous inspection, which was rated Requires Improvement and published in April 2018. The report says the earlier shortfalls had been addressed and resolved.
Safe medicines and staffing
Medicines were given safely and on time. Staffing levels were higher than required, allowing staff to spend time with people.
“People received their medicines in a safe and timely manner.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the home exceptionally clean and tidy, with cleaning schedules and infection control measures in place.
“The home was exceptionally clean and tidy.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff were patient, kind and respectful. They understood people's communication and supported their dignity, privacy and independence.
“People were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.” from the report
Personalised activities
Care plans included people's interests and social needs. Staff supported people with trips, hobbies and links to the local community.
“Staff facilitated a variety of activities which were stimulating and meaningful to people and in line with people's hobbies and interests.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you meet my relative's specific nursing, personal care or dementia needs?
- 02How do you make sure medicines remain safe and records stay complete?
- 03How do you review care plans when a person's needs or wishes change?
- 04What activities and trips could my relative take part in, based on their interests and abilities?
- 05How do you monitor that the improvements made after the previous inspection are being maintained?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service, including the premises and care, and it assessed all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 May 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
Seaview rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, responsive care but ongoing problems with medicines records, risk information and management checks.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 16 and 17 January 2018. Inspectors reviewed four people's care records and four medicine records, spoke with people, a relative, staff and outside health professionals, and checked information about the home.
People told inspectors they felt safe and were treated kindly. Staff were trained, there were enough staff, medicines were generally stored and given safely, and people received good support with food, health care, activities and complaints.
The main problems were incomplete medicines records, missing detail in some health risk assessments and records that did not always show what care had been given. Management checks did not always identify or properly resolve these issues. The overall rating was Requires Improvement, for the second inspection in a row.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff maintaining people's privacy and treating them politely. People described warm and friendly relationships with staff.
“People were treated with the utmost dignity and respect.” from the report
Enough trained staff
Staff recruitment checks were thorough, training was up to date and staffing levels were considered sufficient to meet people's needs.
“Staff were safely recruited and there were sufficient staff employed to look after people safely.” from the report
Person-centred plans
Care plans included people's preferences, routines and support needs. Staff used this information to provide care in the way people wanted.
“Care plans were very person-centred and detailed people's individual needs and preferences.” from the report
Activities and social contact
People had access to one-to-one and group activities, trips and time with visitors. Activities were planned around people's interests and needs.
“Staff had plenty of time to provide a wide variety of stimulating activities which people enjoyed.” from the report
Medicine records
seriousSome medicine administration records had gaps, so inspectors could not always be certain that medicines had been given when needed. Some emergency medicine guidance also lacked important detail.
“Medicine administration records (MARs) were not always completed in a comprehensive manner.” from the report
Incomplete risk information
seriousSome clinical risk assessments did not explain enough about conditions such as epilepsy, including possible triggers and what staff should do during a seizure.
“Some clinical risk assessments did not always contain enough information.” from the report
Weak management checks
seriousAudits and checks were carried out, but they did not always find problems or show who would fix them and by when. Records of care, food and fluids were also not consistently complete.
“Audits and checks of the service had taken place, but audits were not always completed robustly.” from the report
Ratings not displayed
needs fixingThe provider had not displayed its previous ratings at the home or on the company website. The regulator issued a fixed penalty notice, which the provider paid.
“The service has failed to display their previous performance ratings at the service and on the provider's company website.” from the report
- 01What has changed in the medicine administration records since the inspection, and how do you check that every dose is recorded?
- 02How do you record and review individual risks for people with epilepsy or other specific health conditions?
- 03Who is responsible for completing actions found during audits, and how is completion checked?
- 04How do you make sure food and fluid records are completed accurately for people at risk of malnutrition?
- 05Are the home's current CQC ratings now displayed at the home and on the company website?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, and it found improvements since November 2016 but continued problems with safety records and governance. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 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
3 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- May 2019Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2017Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 26 August 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
30 live-in carers within about an hour of North Tyneside
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 £950 to £1,130 a week. 26 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“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.