We carried out a review of the data available to us about Seathorne Court Residential Home on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Seathorne Court Residential Home, you can give feedback on this service.
Seathorne Court Residential Home is registered to provide accommodation and care for 18 older people. There were 15 people living in the service at the time of our inspection.
The service was run by a company who was the registered provider. There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated regulations about how the service is run. In this report when we speak about both the company and the registered manager we refer to them as being, ‘the registered persons’.
At our last inspection on 8 December 2015 the service was rated, ‘Good’.
At the present inspection the overall rating of the service remained, ‘Good’. However, we rated our domain ‘effective’ as, ‘Requires Improvement’. This was because we found that improvements were needed to ensure that all parts of the accommodation were designed, adapted and decorated to meet people’s needs and expectations.
Our other findings were as follows. There were systems, processes and practices to safeguard people from situations in which they may experience abuse including financial mistreatment. Most risks to people’s safety had been assessed, monitored and managed so they were supported to stay safe while their freedom was respected. In addition, most of the necessary arrangements had been made to ensure that medicines were managed safely. Suitable arrangements had been made to ensure that sufficient numbers of suitable staff were deployed in the service and background checks had been completed before new care staff had been appointed. People had benefited from most of the necessary steps being taken to prevent and control infection and lessons had been learnt when things had gone wrong.
Suitable provision had been made to assess people’s needs and choices so that care was provided to achieve effective outcomes. Although some care staff had not received all of the training the registered persons said they needed, in practice they knew how to care for people in the right way. This included supporting people if they became distressed.
People received the individual assistance they needed to enjoy their meals and they were helped to eat and drink enough to maintain a balanced diet. In addition, suitable steps had been taken to ensure that people received coordinated and person-centred care when they used or moved between different services. Furthermore, people had been supported to live healthier lives by having suitable access to healthcare services so that they received on-going healthcare support.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and nurses and care staff supported them in the least restrictive ways possible. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People were treated with kindness, respect and compassion and they were given emotional support when needed. They had also been supported to express their views and be actively involved in making decisions about their care as far as possible. This included them having access to lay advocates if necessary. In addition, confidential information was kept private.
People received personalised care that was responsive to their needs. As part of this people had been offered opportunities to pursue their hobbies and interests. People’s concerns and complaints were listened and responded to in order to improve the quality of care. In addition, suitable provision had been made to support people at the end of their life to have a comfortable, dignified and pain-free death.
There was a positive culture in the service that was open, inclusive and focused upon achieving good outcomes for people. People benefited from there being a robust management framework that helped care staff to understand their responsibilities so that risks and regulatory requirements were met. In addition, the registered persons had taken suitable steps to ensure the financial sustainability of the service. In addition, the views of people who lived in the service, relatives and staff had been gathered and acted on to shape any improvements that were made.
Although quality checks had been completed some of them had not been sufficiently robust to quickly address shortfalls in the running of the service. However, good team work was promoted and care staff were supported to speak out if they had any concerns about people not being treated in the right way. In addition, the registered persons were actively working in partnership with other agencies to support the development of joined-up care.
Seathorne Court Residential Home is owned by Gungah Care Limited and is situated in the Winthorpe area of Skegness in Lincolnshire. It provides accommodation and personal care for up to 18 older people some of whom experience memory loss associated with conditions such as dementia.
We inspected the home on 8 December 2015. The last inspection took place on 11 October 2013 and we found the registered provider was compliant with all of the outcomes we inspected.
There was a registered manager in place who was also the registered provider of the home. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons.’ Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated regulations about how the service is run.
People were involved in making decisions about how they wanted to be supported and how they spent their time. The registered manager had processes in place which ensured, when needed, they acted in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act, 2005 Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. DoLS are in place to protect people where they do not have capacity to make decisions and where it is considered necessary to restrict their freedom in some way, usually to protect themselves. At the time of this inspection two people had their freedom restricted and the registered provider had acted in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).
Staff knew how to recognise and report any concerns they had regarding people’s safety so that people were kept safe from harm.
The registered manager had safe recruitment process in place and background checks had been completed before new staff were appointed to ensure they were safe to work at the home.
Staff understood people’s needs, wishes and preferences and they had received training in order to enable them to provide care in a way which met people’s individual needs. Positive working relationships had been developed between staff and people who used the service and their relatives and were being maintained. Staff were caring in their approach and people’s privacy and dignity were maintained.
People had been consulted about the care they needed and were offered the opportunity to undertake person-centred activities on a regular planned basis in order to keep them stimulated and maintain and further develop their interests and hobbies.
Staff provided the care described in each person’s care record and had access to a range of healthcare professionals when they required both routine and more specialist help. Clear arrangements were also in place for ordering, storing, administering and disposing of medicines.
People were provided with a good choice of nutritious meals. When necessary, people were given any extra help they needed to make sure that they had enough to eat and drink to keep them healthy.
The registered manager had systems in place to enable them to continually assess and monitor the quality of the services they provided.
The home was run in an open and inclusive way. Staff were encouraged to speak out if they had any concerns and there were systems in place for handling and resolving complaints.
People told us they were very happy living in the home. One person told us, 'I don't feel as though I live in a care home. I do what I want to do. I go out when I want to go out and I've got my confidence back.'
People were asked for permission/consent by staff before they undertook any care needs or treatment and their responses were respected.
People received the care and support they wanted and needed and this was reflected in their care records. We spoke with one person who went out to meet their friends every day before lunch. They told us, 'Life wouldn't be worth living if I didn't do that. I love it.'
Medicines were stored, administered and disposed of safely. People told us they received their medicines on time.
There were effective systems in place to monitor the quality of service given to people. People we spoke with told us they could raise any issues with the provider or manager and felt confident they would be dealt with quickly.
We found people were respected and involved in their care. One person told us, 'I've got my own bed and recliner chair, which is very nice.'
People we spoke with told us the home was a nice place to live. They told us the care staff provided the support and care they needed. One person said, 'The girls are very good. If you ask them to do anything they will do it for you.'
People liked the food they had and said they always had a choice at mealtimes. They also appreciated the activities that were put on for them to take part in.
People told us they felt safe in the home and if they didn't they felt the manager would do something about it. Care staff knew how to protect the people in the home and who to contact if they had concerns.
We saw evidence that care staff were receiving training and support to do their jobs although this could be improved.
People felt they were asked about their opinions in the running of the home by the manager and felt confident taking any concerns directly to him.