CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Seymour House (Hartlepool) Limited
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, effective safeguarding, suitable risk assessments and safe medicines management. A missing PPE station at one entrance was installed immediately after inspectors raised it.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- Assessments had improved, but restrictions on people's money, cigarettes and going out were not clearly supported by a legal or consensual framework. Staff needed to understand and apply the Mental Capacity Act more consistently.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not covered by this inspection. Its previous rating was carried forward.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not covered by this inspection. Its previous rating was carried forward.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found clear management oversight, a positive culture and systems that were used to identify improvements. The home worked well with relatives, local services and other agencies.
What inspectors found, October 2021
Seymour House (Hartlepool) Limited rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care, but the service needed to improve how it applied mental capacity law.
This was an unannounced inspection carried out over four visits in August and September 2021. Inspectors spoke with six people, staff, managers and the cook. They observed care and reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files and management information.
The home was rated Good overall. It was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, safe medicines management, safeguarding arrangements and good links with health professionals. People said staff were kind and that they felt safe.
Effective care was rated Requires Improvement, the same as at the previous inspection. Inspectors found that restrictions on people's money, cigarettes and going out were not clearly linked to a legal or agreed framework. Staff needed a better understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
The inspection did not assess Caring or Responsive. Ratings for those areas from the previous comprehensive inspection were used in the overall rating.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. The home regularly reviewed staffing against people's dependency levels.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were received, stored, given and destroyed safely. Staff had medicines training and had been assessed as competent.
“People's medicines were appropriately managed.” from the report
Kind and safe care
People told inspectors they were treated kindly and felt safe. Staff were described as dedicated and committed.
“People told us they were treated with kindness.” from the report
Good partnership working
The home worked closely with community mental health teams and other health professionals. Inspectors said this helped people receive support in a timely way.
“These good working relationships had led to people receiving all the support they needed in a timely manner.” from the report
Management and improvement
Inspectors found clear oversight and a positive culture. The home had improved its assessment tools and was developing a skills kitchen to support rehabilitation.
“The provider had ensured the governance arrangements were used to critically review practices within the service.” from the report
Mental capacity and restrictions
seriousRestrictions on some people's money, cigarettes and going out were not clearly recorded as being based on consent or legal authority. Staff needed to understand and apply the Mental Capacity Act more consistently.
“None of the home's care records address this or under what framework (legal or consensual) the restriction of their money and items was based.” from the report
Menu variety
minorPeople received healthy and nutritious meals, but some people said the menu could be repetitive. The registered manager agreed to discuss menu options with residents.
“People were complimentary about the food but some people felt the menu choices could be repetitive.” from the report
PPE access
needs fixingPPE was not initially available at the back entrance, so staff had to travel to the office to get masks. A PPE station was installed immediately after this was raised.
“PPE was not made available at the entrance at back of the home and we found staff travelled the home to the office to obtain masks.” from the report
- 01How do you assess whether a person has capacity to make decisions about their money, cigarettes and going out?
- 02Where restrictions are needed, how do you record consent, best-interest decisions and the legal authority for those restrictions?
- 03What further training or checks have staff received to make sure they apply the Mental Capacity Act correctly?
- 04How have residents been involved in changing the menu and reducing repetition?
- 05What arrangements are now in place to make PPE available at every entrance?
This was a planned inspection focused on Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 October 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, December 2018
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found that people’s care was not always effective, especially around mental capacity and nutrition.
Inspectors visited the home without warning from 30 October to 1 November 2018. They spoke with people, a relative, staff and managers. They reviewed care records, staff records and service records, and looked around the building.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were rated Good. Effective was rated Requires Improvement because staff did not always apply mental capacity principles consistently, and there were shortfalls in healthy food choices and records for people at risk of under-nourishment.
The home had improved since the previous inspection in September 2017. The two previous breaches about safe care and treatment and governance had been put right. The overall rating improved from Requires Improvement to Good.
Kind and respectful care
People spoke positively about staff. Inspectors saw staff treating people warmly, with dignity and respect.
“We saw that staff were caring and compassionate when working with the people who used the service.” from the report
Improved safety
The home had addressed the safety problems found at the previous inspection. Staffing, fire arrangements, medicines and recruitment checks were judged to be safe.
“At this inspection we found these matters had been resolved.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans described people’s needs and preferences. Staff responded when people’s needs or behaviour changed.
“People had care plans that were tailored to meet their individual needs and preferences.” from the report
Activities and independence
People were supported to make choices, use the local community and take part in activities they enjoyed.
“People were encouraged to be independent by venturing into the local community and partaking in local activities they enjoyed.” from the report
Strong management checks
The manager and staff sought views and used regular audits to identify areas for improvement.
“The quality, safety and effectiveness of the service was monitored by a wide variety of quality assurance processes and audits.” from the report
Mental capacity decisions
needs fixingStaff did not always apply the Mental Capacity Act consistently. One person’s ability to make decisions about food and alcohol had not been considered in the same way as their ability to attend medical appointments.
“However, staff needed to ensure they consistently applied the principles of the Mental Capacity Act.” from the report
Healthy food choices
needs fixingAlthough meals were based on people’s preferences, the second choice at each meal was often bread-based. This meant people might not have had enough fruit or vegetables.
“Therefore, people may go all day without eating fruit or vegetables.” from the report
Nutrition records
needs fixingFood charts for people at high nutritional risk were not completed consistently or stored clearly. This made it difficult for staff to know who needed support and how often records should be completed.
“Food charts were inconsistently completed and did not demonstrate people being offered or accepting fortified food” from the report
Hot water temperatures
needs fixingRecorded water temperatures were consistently below the levels the report says were needed for people and staff. The manager said boiler work was underway.
“However, these consistently fell well below 44˚c for hot water for people who used the service and 60˚c for staff washing dishes.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that mental capacity assessments cover each specific decision, including food, alcohol and medical appointments?
- 02What healthy choices are available at every meal, and how do you make sure people can access fruit and vegetables?
- 03How are fortified meals offered and recorded for people at risk of under-nourishment?
- 04Has the boiler work been completed, and what are the current recorded water temperatures?
- 05What training have support workers received for responding to volatile or challenging behaviour?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions and the overall quality of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 December 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 Seymour House (Hartlepool) Limited
6 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- October 2021Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Seymour House (Hartlepool) Limited →
- December 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Seymour House (Hartlepool) Limited →
- October 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- December 2014Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 March 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
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.