Seaton House

Staff demonstrated a caring, compassionate and empathetic approach towards the people they supported. They spoke warmly and respectfully about people and showed a good understanding of their individual needs, preferences and communication styles. Staff described how support was adapted to meet individual needs and promote positive outcomes. One member of staff described the service as a "person-centred, choice-led service" where people were encouraged every day to have enriched and meaningful lives. Discussions and observations showed staff knew people well and had developed positive relationships which promoted wellbeing, independence and quality of life.

The service continued to demonstrate appropriate safeguarding arrangements. Records relating to safeguarding concerns showed effective management oversight, involvement of relevant professionals and support provided to people and staff. Staff understood their safeguarding responsibilities and there were clear processes for reporting and responding to concerns.

A positive learning culture was evident. Learning from incidents and events was shared through handovers, communication books, supervision sessions and team meetings. Staff valued these opportunities, including attendance remotely via video call, which helped ensure information and learning were shared consistently.

People's care plans and risk assessments contained personalised, detailed and up-to-date information. Risks were regularly reviewed and updated in response to changing needs and provided staff with clear guidance on supporting people safely whilst promoting their independence. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of individual risks and how these should be managed.

Staffing arrangements remained consistent and flexible, with sufficient staff available to meet people's needs and support community access and social activities. Recruitment records evidenced safe recruitment practices and appropriate pre-employment checks. Staff completed mandatory and role-specific training to ensure they had the skills required to support people effectively.

The service environment was clean, well maintained and suitable for the people living there. Regular audits demonstrated effective oversight of the environment, health and safety arrangements and overall service quality.

Medicines were managed safely. Staff had received appropriate training, medicines were stored securely and PRN protocols were in place where required.

People's needs were assessed and reviewed regularly. Care plans reflected current health and support needs and provided clear guidance about how care should be delivered. Staff worked closely with healthcare services and acted as effective advocates when supporting people to attend appointments. People's health needs were clearly documented and reviewed, and feedback from healthcare professionals demonstrated positive partnership working and timely access to services.

People's outcomes were monitored through regular care plan reviews, health monitoring and management oversight. Changes in need were identified promptly and care records updated accordingly.

The service worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Where people required support with decision-making this was provided in the least restrictive way possible. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisations had been appropriately applied for and monitored. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes this can be done through a procedure called Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found that staff and management worked within the MCA. DoLS authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions they had choice, control and freedom over their lives.

Relatives told us communication was good and that they were kept informed about significant events affecting their family members. They felt involved in reviews and decisions about care, supporting a person-centred approach.

Effective governance systems remained in place. Audits, oversight processes and management monitoring demonstrated a continued focus on safety, quality and continuous improvement. Overall, the evidence showed the service had sustained its Good rating through effective leadership, safe systems, knowledgeable staff and a continued commitment to delivering high-quality care.