Seaham View

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Medicines were given safely, however, guidance and records for topical creams and when required medicines with a variable dose needed improvement. The service was safe, clean and well-maintained. The provider made regular checks on the safety and cleanliness of the service. Staff understood how to reduce the risk of the spread of infections. There were enough staff who were trained to meet people’s needs. Staff had attended training on safeguarding and knew how to respond to concerns. Safe recruitment practices were followed. In depth assessment and risk assessments were completed, and people were involved in decisions about their care and developing their support plans. The provider had processes to learn from incidents and accidents. Staff had meetings to discuss what worked and what did not, and how practice could be improved. Systems supported smooth transition between services. Staff worked in partnership with a range of professionals to improve people’s health and well-being outcomes.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People and relatives told us that care met people’s needs. When incidents or accidents happened, relatives told us they felt the provider was open and wanted to learn from these to improve the service. One relative told us, “The management and staff are very good, they are open and are quick to let me know if there has been an incident. We discuss what happened and if anything needs to change”. Relatives felt able to raise concerns.

Staff told us there was a learning culture. They told us they talked to people and used their views to shape the service. Staff told us they had meetings and de-briefs following incidents or accidents so they could learn and develop their practice. Staff felt they could raise issues, and these would be listened to and addressed. One staff member told us, “I get support from senior staff, team leaders and the management. This happens when I approach them for help. They listen and try to find solutions where possible.”

Processes supported a learning culture. Concerns about safety were investigated and acted on. Incidents and accidents were reviewed, including feedback from the staff involved. Lessons learnt were shared with staff and were monitored to identify any trends and themes. Management gathered feedback from people, staff, relatives and professionals to develop the service.

People and relatives told us the provider worked well with other agencies and partners to deliver safe care. One relative told us that there was a smooth transition when their family member moved to the service, they said, “[Family member] is very complex, and it was vital that the staff understood their needs. The staff were brilliant, and the transition went very smoothly. I could not have asked for more.” People and relatives were involved in how the service was delivered and in reviews of the support.

Staff told us they felt the provider shared information effectively and appropriately with partners which helped to ensure people had safe and appropriate care. One staff member told us, “I feel we have a good relationship with all professionals and family at Seaham View as we try to be an open book.”

Partners told us people had comprehensive care records that demonstrated working with professionals and other agencies to ensure people had consistent care.

Records in the home demonstrated the provider worked with professionals such as social workers, GPs and health specialists to support people to have safe and joined up care. If people moved between services consideration was given to how this was planned and how information was shared.

People told us they felt safe and understood how to report concerns. A relative told us, “I know my [family member] is safe, they are always happy to return [to Seaham View] after visiting me. They would tell me if they had any issues.”

Staff told us they understood how to recognise the signs of abuse and discrimination and that they had training to support this. Staff told us they were confident to report issues and that concerns would be acted on.

People appeared happy, comfortable, and safe. People expressed to us that they felt safe. We observed staff delivering care in a safe and respectful way. Staff were available and attentive to people’s needs.

There were systems and processes in place to respond to any safeguarding concerns. Staff had training to recognise and report the signs of abuse. Any concerns raised were acted on to mitigate future risks.

People and relatives told us people were supported to understand and manage risks. Relatives told us people were supported to do the things they wanted to do and were included in conversations about any risks this might present. One relative told us, “My [family member] can tell me if they are having difficulties, and we will have discussions with the staff team if we feel anything needs changing or risks have changed.”

Staff and leaders told us people were supported to understand and manage risks in the least restrictive way. One staff member told us, “Individuals are supported to take positive risks.” They told us people, relatives, staff and professionals discussed risks and agreed a way to reduce these. Another staff member said, “Risk assessments are in place for people, but no one is stopped from doing what they want to do within reason. I feel everyone lives their life to their full capability and are always out doing things they love and enjoy.”

Staff worked with people in a way which kept them safe but enabled them to make choices about their care and their daily activities. We observed positive interactions between staff and people, with people being asked what they wanted to do. For example, people were assisted to go out into the community safely.

Risks to people were assessed and risk assessments developed involving key people, such as the person and their relatives. Detailed support plans and risk assessments were in place to show how risks should be managed. Risk assessments included information about people’s communication and sensory needs. Staff had access to detailed information about how to support people with their physical and emotional care. Plans were in place to respond to distressed behaviours and to support people safely should they become upset or agitated. Following any incidents of distressed behaviour, staff looked at what worked well and what did not, to see what they could do better in the future.

People lived in a safe environment with appropriate equipment and facilities. One relative told us, “My [family member] needs their own space, the home has not only provided a lovely big bedroom but also an additional living space. This has enabled them to feel safe and reduction in their anxiety.”

Staff told us they felt the environment was safe and suitable to meet people’s needs. A staff member told us, “The entire premises and equipment are safely kept.” Another staff member told us, “I feel the premises are safe and clean and staff do a good job to keep on top of the building. It helps that staff have a domestic cleaner and a handyman to ensure the building is well looked after.”

People were being supported in a safe environment that met their needs. Staff were aware of potential risks in the environment and knew the processes to reduce them. Fire equipment checks were in date and environmental risk assessments were up to date.

Potential risks in the care environment were well managed. Equipment, facilities, and technology were used to support safe care. Staff and leaders undertook a range of checks on the service and equipment to ensure it was safe and fit for purpose. Certificates and audits were in place, for example for, fire safety, gas and electricity. Continuity and improvement plans were in place to ensure the environment remained safe.

People and relatives told us there were enough staff to support people safely and to help people live active and fulfilling lives. Relatives told us they felt the staff team was skilled and competent. One relative told us, “The staff team are very well trained. They need to be to support my [family member] effectively”.

Most staff told us they felt there were enough staff and that they had the training and support they needed to do their jobs effectively. Some staff told us staffing had recently improved as new staff had been employed. One staff member said, “Yes, there are enough staff per shift. With the recent recruitment, we have enough staff.” Staff told us they completed induction training which included spending time with people to understand their needs. Staff completed a range of training tailored to the needs of the service. One staff member gave mixed feedback about how effective they felt training to manage people’s distressed behaviours was, we discussed this with the registered manager, and saw they monitored how staff responded in these situations to improve practice and assess training needs.

There were sufficient staff to support people safely and, in a person-centred way. People received timely support and we observed staff support people to do things for themselves. There were enough staff on duty so that people could take part in activities of their choosing inside and outside the home.

Processes supported safe staffing. Staffing levels were based on people's assessed support needs, including one to one support when this was needed. The provider followed safe and effective recruitment practices. Staff had an induction into the service. Processes demonstrated staff were trained in relevant subjects and the manager monitored compliance with training. Staff received formal support such as supervision, appraisal, and checks on their competency. The provider had a plan to do more formal staff appraisals, as these meetings had not always happened as planned.

People and relatives told us the service was clean and tidy. Relatives told us that staff used PPE (personal protective equipment) such as gloves and aprons when appropriate and staff took measures to reduce the risk of the spread of infections if people were unwell.

Staff and leaders told us the premises and equipment were kept clean to reduce the risk of infections. Staff told us, “The premises, equipment are safe and clean for the people we support”. Staff told us they had training in infection prevention and control.

The service was clean and well-maintained. The provider employed cleaning staff and staff also supported people to keep their home clean. We observed staff supporting people to do this.

Staff had training in infection prevention and control to understand how to reduce the risk of the spread of infections. The manager undertook regular checks of the environment to ensure it remained clean. They also checked fixtures, fitting and equipment were in good repair so they could be cleaned safely. Kitchens were clean and staff had training to handle food safely.

People received their medicines in a kind and person-centred way. Staff were knowledgeable about the care needs of people living at the home. Where people were prescribed medicines which are used to reduce anxiety and agitation ‘when required’ (PRN), guidance was in place, and they were rarely used. People’s preferences about how they wanted their medicines administered was recorded in the medication file. Relatives told us they thought medicines were given safely and appropriately. One relative told us, “I know the medication my [family member] is taking and if the staff team feel it is not working, they are quick to tell me, and we arrange a review with the GP.”

Staff told us they felt medicines were managed safely. Staff had medicines training and there was a system of competency assessments annually or when errors were made. Staff had dedicated time to manage and handle medicines including ordering, receiving, and managing medicines stocks.

Records of regular medicines were generally well maintained and followed national guidance including recording people’s allergies, PRN protocols (documents to support staff to know how and when to administer a ‘when required’ medicine safely) were in place and accessible at the point of administration. However, there was no guidance when medicines were prescribed with a variable dose. Processes for applying and recording topical medicines, such as creams, were not being consistently followed by staff and there was not always clear guidance. People received regular reviews of medicines and appropriate monitoring. The manager completed a variety of monthly audits. These had identified some of the issues we saw in relation to records for variable dose medicines and topical medicines (such as medicines creams).