Seaview

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

The key question of Effective was rated Good at our last inspection. Although we found areas of concern at this assessment, until we have assessed more quality statements in Effective the rating for this service remains the same. We found people were not receiving support following Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture guidance. People’s skills had not been assessed and there were no plans to develop people’s skills to be more independent. Staff had not recorded how decisions were made when people were unable to make them, to show they were following best practice under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

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.

A relative told us they would like to be involved in assessing and reviewing their loved one’s needs but this had not been supported by staff. They had informed the registered manager several times they needed a period of notice to attend meetings but appropriate notice had not been given. The lack of notice had prevented them from joining meetings and alternative ways of them sharing their views had not been explored. Records of the outcomes of the meetings had not been shared with relatives so they were informed about changes in their loved one’s needs or goals and the support they received.

Staff told us they understood people’s needs, and could recognise when people’s needs changed. Staff were able to describe how to support people living with diabetes and epilepsy. Staff told us they knew people well, and could recognise when people became unwell. Staff told us, “I would look after them. I’d tell the senior so they could have some medication or report it.” The registered manager told us they had limited information regarding one person, due to an emergency placement. The registered manager and staff were observing the person to help build a care plan specific to them. The registered manager was also working with other healthcare professionals to gain as much information about the person as possible. Other people at the service were supported to attend healthcare appointments including seeing the GP, dentist, mental health team and neurologist.

There were systems in place to assess people's needs when they moved into the service. There was a pre-admission assessment which covered all areas of people's lives and their needs. The last admission to the service had been an emergency placement and the assessment was still being completed during the onsite assessment. People had been referred to healthcare professionals when their needs had changed.

We did not look at Delivering evidence-based care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Monitoring and improving outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

People told us how staff supported them to make choices in their day to day lives. For example, staff described one person’s clothes to them to help them what to wear each day. Another person told us they chose what they wanted to wear without support and hung it up ready for the next day.

Staff we spoke with understood their responsibilities in relation to consent. Staff told us they advocated on behalf of people to ensure their voice was heard, and that they made the decisions about their care. Staff told us they encouraged people to make all the choices they could including for example, what time they went to bed, and what time they woke up. Staff told us people chose on a weekly basis what they wanted to eat, with each person taking it in turns to ensure everyone had a favourite on the menu. People were encouraged to choose what they wore, and where people were not able to see the options staff would describe the colours and patterns to enable the person to make a choice. Staff told us, "We always try to explain why and talk things through with them."

The provider had processes in place to assess and record people's capacity to consent following the best practice guidance in the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The registered manager had not completed all the required records to show what decisions people could make. When people were unable to make decisions, it had not been recorded how decisions had been reached in people's best interests. There were guidelines in place for staff about the best time to support people to make a decision for example first thing in the morning before they became tired.