Seahorses

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

In this key question we looked at 2 quality statements. People were happy with how staff supported them however we made some observations of care which did not promote people’s dignity. We found a breach of regulation relating to people being able to make choices and person centred care.

This service scored 70 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We received feedback from the district nurse team who work closely with the service. The district nurse told us that staff are lacking in a few areas, however told us “a few carers are brilliant, and know exactly what to do.” The district nurse raised concerns with us about the lack of hot water within the service, stating that there is never any hot water or soap in people’s bedrooms, and that the water is lukewarm. The district nurse also queried whether an individual was being washed as they had no flannels or washing facilities available, and that care staff were not able to provide clarity on this.

The owner told us he was assured that people are supported with kindness, compassion and dignity. He explained: “I know my staff well. I'm here 5 days a week, I'm constantly observing. I'm always around the building at different times. I listen to personal care, I observe staff. We like to have fun, laughter and smiles. If you smile with someone they are re-assured. We know that reassurance allows people to express themselves. Even our most serious clients can still express themselves.”

People spoke positively about the support they received from staff. Comments included: “It’s a nice place, [staff] are so kind here.” And: “[I am] quite happy here, very happy. Like everything, the people, the food, most people, talk to anybody I do”. People and relatives told us the service had a warm and homely atmosphere. Comments included: “The atmosphere is second to none”. Relatives told us that staff treated their relatives with kindness. Comments included: “[I am] happy [person] is here because it is so homely. [Person] gets excellent care here. This is a small home, and residents are treated as one of the family.” And: “[Person] is really well cared for, really well looked after. The care is unbelievable and extends beyond the residents to the families”. People told us they felt they were treated with respect. One person told us: “[Staff are] definitely respectful to me. I respect them and ask in a nice way, and they do what you want. They listen and if they haven’t got what I want they will go about looking for it.”

We observed mixed interactions between staff and people living at the service. We saw some interactions that suggested staff knew people well and had developed meaningful relationships with people. However, we saw some interactions that were not compassionate and did not support people’s dignity. We saw person attempting to engage in conversation with a member of staff, and observed this was ignored.

We did not look at Treating people as individuals during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

People’s choice was not always considered with day-to-day activities. For example, we observed that people were in the living room with loud music and the television on at once, meaning you could not hear the television. We observed one person was trying to watch the television at this time. We observed people were not asked what they would like to watch on the television. One person appeared to be becoming distressed by the television programme that was playing, staff did not ask this person if they would like this to be changed. Loud music was put on throughout the day without asking people’s consent or preference. People’s engagement with the music varied, some appeared to enjoy this whilst others did not appear to react. Some people were not offered choices for their daily meals. When we asked the chef about this, he said he was aware that some people did not like certain meals and would offer them an alternative such as homemade soup, however we observed most people were not offered choices around mealtimes. We observed staff encouraging people to be independent when having meals, and only assisted when needed. We observed staff always asked permission to assist before doing so.

We found people’s care and support plans did not always contain detail about people’s preferences, and we found some people's preferences were not discussed. For example, one person’s care plan stated they had not expressed any religious needs, however there was no evidence the person had been asked if they followed any religion and if they would like to take part in any religious practices.

People told us they were happy living at Seahorses. Comments included: “I like living here, this is an independent place. [It is] very nice here.” And: ‘‘[I am] quite happy here, I can’t say I’m not happy. I choose to stay in my room, I like that.” People told us they enjoyed some of the activities in the home, one person told us: “I go along to things like musical things and bingo and exercises.”

Staff told us they supported people to be independent where appropriate. One staff told us: “I try to let [people] do things, before I do it for them, and I encourage people to do things. But just lend a little hand, if they can do it, or show them how to do it. I don't like to take [people’s] independence away, if they are capable of washing or feeding, I let them try before I jump in.” Staff and the provider told us people were able to make choices about whether they wanted to eat the meal that was on the menu, but were not involved in deciding what meals featured on the menu. The provider told us this was also the case with activities. The provider explained that people were offered a choice in whether to partake in the activity which was planned, however people were not involved in deciding which activities featured on the activity planner. We asked the owner about access to religious services for those people whose faith was important to them, he said that communion had occasionally been offered to people however regular religious services was not something they would be able to accommodate. This meant that people who belonged to a faith may not have access to religious ceremonies or religious leaders.

We did not look at Responding to people’s immediate needs during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

We did not look at Workforce wellbeing and enablement during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.