Seaham View

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.

People had comprehensive needs assessments which were reviewed regularly to ensure they remained current. Assessments informed support plans and risk assessments giving staff details of how to support people in-line with their needs, wishes and preferences. Planning included how to support people with distressed behaviours in-line with best practice guidance. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and asked for consent before giving support. People’s mental capacity was assessed, and support plans were in place explaining how staff should support people with decision making. When people lacked capacity to make decisions themselves, best interests processes were followed so that decisions could be made on their behalf.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way and in their best interests. The policies and systems in the service supported this practise. Feedback from people and relatives supported that people lived their lives according to their wishes and preferences. Support plans demonstrated people were given choice and control over their daily lives. Staff interacted with people with kindness and respect. We observed a calm and relaxed atmosphere in the home. People were supported to be as independent as possible and to do things for themselves. Staff were caring and shared an aim to support people to live full and meaningful lives.

The registered manager ensured everyone could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Staff worked to ensure that everyone had good experiences and outcomes despite any barriers they may face. The values and ethos of the service supported this.

People received services in line with Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture. However, the service accommodated more people than recommended for people with a learning disability. The provider had clear and effective governance, management, and accountability arrangements. There were a range of regular checks and audits to support this, and action plans were developed to meet any shortfalls. The registered manager and manager had oversight of staff performance. Staff understood their role and responsibilities. Managers and staff met regularly to ensure everyone understood the service values and were working towards a common aim. Staff worked in-line with best practice. The home used an independent quality assessment company to check the care standards annually and recommend any improvements. They also worked proactively with local agencies, such as the Local Authority, to meet local frameworks and standards. The provider has strategies to improve the service and to drive innovation, for example consideration was given to how the service could make good use of technology and be more environmentally friendly. The home notified CQC and other agencies of significant events.