Seabourne House Care Home

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

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. This is the first assessment for Seabourne House Care Home. This key question has been rated good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm. Safeguarding processes were robust, and staff were aware of reporting systems. People’s liberty was protected where this was in their best interests and in line with legislation. Safe recruitment practices were in place. Environmental checks and maintenance were in place to ensure people were safe. People received their medicines as prescribed.

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.

The service had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Concerns about safety were listened to, safety events were investigated and reported thoroughly, and lessons were learned to continually identify and embed good practices. The service had a robust system in place for reporting, reviewing and analysing incidents, accidents and events. The manager was informed of, and reviewed accidents and incidents across the service regularly, to identify trends and themes. Lessons learned were reviewed and records updated to ensure corrective actions were taken resulting in changes to improve care for others. The manager told us lessons learned were discussed and information shared with staff through handovers, staff meetings and supervisions. This was done to prevent recurrence and with a view to driving improvement in the service. People and their relatives told us they were comfortable raising any issues directly with staff or the management team and felt their concerns will be addressed quickly.

The service worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services. The service worked with people and their relatives to establish a plan of care and processes to ease transition between services. This was done to ensure continuity of care when people moved between different provisions. The service had a robust process in place to ensure people’s information was available if the person was admitted to hospital. The provider had developed a document used to ensure any changes were communicated with the whole staff team when people returned to the service after a hospital stay. Relatives told us they felt confident the appropriate information would be shared to ensure safety and continuity of care. Relatives told us the service communicated well with them and updated them regularly when required. A relative said, “They ring us with updates, especially when [family member] went into hospital. They will chase the hospital for updates and update us.”

People told us they felt safe at the service. A person said, “I feel safe because the staff are wonderful.” People and their relatives knew who to contact should they have concerns and were confident any issues would be resolved. A relative told us, “I would go to the manager. [The manager] is very efficient.” Another relative said, “The reception team are very good and helpful. The staff know all the people and always greet me. It is like a family. All the safety aspects are good.” Staff told us they knew how to, and felt comfortable to, report concerns to the manager. A staff member told us, “When something goes wrong, we all learn from it.” Staff received training in safeguarding and the provider had an up-to-date safeguarding policy in place. The provider had an effective process in place to ensure concerns were reported to the local authority quickly and appropriately. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The Act requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to make particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA. In care services, and some hospitals, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA, whether appropriate legal authorisations were in place when needed to deprive a person of their liberty, and whether any conditions relating to those authorisations were being met. All legal applications had been made in accordance with DoLS. This meant people’s rights were fully respected.

People told us staff worked to keep them safe and relatives confirmed this. A relative said, “Since [family member] has been here, [family member] is no longer agitated. [Family member’s] medication has been regulated and [family member] is much happier. [Family member] has also put on weight because [family member] is eating more. Staff try to catch things early and seem to have eyes in the back of their head. If we had any concerns and we were not happy [family member] wouldn’t be here.” We observed staff working safely with people. People were encouraged to join activities, supported to eat and mobilise using various walking equipment. The service worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. Risk assessments had been completed to assess people for risks to their health, safety and wellbeing. Outcome and actions to mitigate risk of harm had been transferred to care plans which were person centred. Risk assessments and care plans were regularly reviewed and updated using the providers electronic system, which ensured any changes were immediately accessible to staff.

The service detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. For example, window restrictors were in place and radiators were covered to maintain people’s safety. The service made sure facilities, and technology supported the delivery of safe care. People were cared for in safe environments that were designed to meet their needs. When appropriate people had personal display cabinets for the safe-keeping of recognisable, personal memorabilia outside of their bedrooms. People’s bedrooms were personalised and decorated. A person told us, “They look after me well. I really like my room.” A dedicated staff member had oversight of maintenance within the home. The provider used external contractors to service the fire system and to undertake some checks, including equipment checks. This meant they had been carried out by qualified individuals. The manager told us many improvements had been made to the building and the garden, and many more were planned for this year. We observed air flow mattresses were not consistently checked to ensure they were set at the right level for the person using them. The system in place to ensure the correct setting was not effective. We found no impact to people. In response to our feedback the provider implemented a new system to ensure compliance.

There were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified, competent and experienced staff, who received effective support, enabling them to safely meet people's care and treatment needs.. People told us staff knew how to support them. A person said, “Staff are lovely. They will do anything for me, are well trained and know what they are doing.” Relatives were complimentary about staff. Comments included, “There is always staff around and they are happy to help with anything”, “There is not a high turnover of staff, so they are able to build a relationship with residents and family. There have been one or two staff come and go but the core people remain the same”, and “We see the same staff. The staff are consistent, and they know us, and we know them.” Training records showed staff had the necessary training, skills and knowledge to carry out their roles. The provider offered additional training and encouraged staff with their professional development. Robust recruitment procedures were in place to ensure the required checks were carried out on staff before they commenced their employment. This included enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks for adults. DBS checks provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the police national computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions. Staff received appropriate ongoing supervision in their role to ensure their competence was maintained. Staff felt part of a team and had regular group meetings. A staff member told us, “Every staff member works as a team. If we have any concerns [the management] support us and everyone is working as a team.” Another staff member said, “I like to come here, they are my friends as my family are back at home. [The management] do supervisions every 2-3 months (…),I got lots of training. I asked for training. I think I need to learn more so I ask for it.”

The service assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.  Relatives were complimentary about the cleanliness of the service. Comments included;, “It is very clean”, and “It is spotless.” Personal protective equipment (PPE) was available for staff to use when needed. We observed staff using PPE appropriately during our onsite inspection.  At the time of the assessment the service held a food hygiene rating of 5 which meant hygiene standards were very good and fully comply with the law. We observed the service to be clean, well maintained and free of clutter. Staff received training in infection control techniques and were observed to follow effective infection control procedures. For example, red bags were used in the laundry room to separate laundry that was contaminated. There was liquid soap and paper towels available in all the bathrooms and additional hand sanitizers throughout the service. The provider had an up-to-date infection control policy.

Staff ensured medicines and treatments were managed safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. People received their medicines as prescribed. We observed staff during the medicine round wearing a red tabard with ‘Do not disturb’ written on it. Creams were dated when opened and stored safely. Staff received training and had competency assessments to support the safe management and administration of medicines. Some people were prescribed ‘as required’ medicines. Guidance was in place to help staff administer the medicines safely. People only received covert medicines in accordance with legal requirements and in consultation with relevant professionals. Creams were dated when opened and stored safely. Medicine audits were completed to identify any concerns. Policies and procedures were in place for staff to follow to ensure the safe administration of medicines. The service worked closely with healthcare professionals regarding medicines management.