Rated Care Homes

Seaford Family Care

RI

Requires improvement

Rated on

Rating from the Care Quality Commission.

At a glance

  • 1 rating

    Only one rating on record, so there is no trend to show yet.

  • 8 months

    since the latest rating was published.

  • 39 of 258

    rated care homes in East Sussex are rated Requires improvement, like this one.

Seaford Family Care: inspection record

Care home, 19 beds, East Sussex

Rated Requires improvement in February 2026.

Seaford Family Care: inspection record: inspection ratings by year, 2015 to 2026
201520162017201820192020202120222023202420252026
Overall
Safe
Effective
Caring
Responsive
Well-led

Ratings published by the Care Quality Commission.

Compare nearby

Nearest rated Good or Outstanding: Maldon House (Good, 0.2 miles away) and Nova House (Good, 0.2 miles away).

Nearest care homes:

  1. –
    Seaford Family Care Limited Not yet rated, less than 0.1 miles away
  2. G
    Maldon House Good, 0.2 miles away
  3. G
    Nova House Good, 0.2 miles away
  4. RI
    Freshford Cottage Nursing Home Requires improvement, 0.2 miles away
  5. G
    Threeways Nursing Home Good, 0.3 miles away

See all care homes in East Sussex

See all care homes in Seaford

What inspectors found

From the Care Quality Commission's assessment published 10 February 2026 (assessment visit 13 November 2025). Quoted under the Open Government Licence.

Assessment date: 27 November to the 24 December 2025. Site visit was undertaken on 27 November and 1 December 2025. This was the first full assessment of this newly registered service. The service registered with the Care Quality Commission on 4 October 2023.Homescare Seaford is a residential care home providing accommodation for up to 19 older people and those living with dementia. At the time of our assessment there were 17 people living at the home. The registered manager was in breach of three legal regulations in relation to safe care and treatment, staffing and governance. People’s safety was not managed effectively. Environmental and fire risks had not always been identified and mitigated. Medicines were not always safely managed.Staff had not always been recruited safely. There were gaps across all training records and some staff had not had a supervision meeting for over 9 months. The governance, management structure and auditing process were not robust enough to identify and then learn from when things went wrong. The review and updating of care plans and risk assessments had not been completed for over 12 months. The provider had not put in place an effective process to get feedback from staff.Pre-assessments were carried out before people moved to the service but there were inconsistencies regarding people’s and relatives involvement in these processes. Care plans lacked detail about people’s previous histories and preferred routines. The registered manager did not always follow up on the advice and support offered by other professionals. People’s hydration and nutrition needs were met but feedback about meal quality was poor. People’s health was monitored using recognised tools but not all staff understood these processes. These were areas that required improvement. Mental capacity assessments were in place and staff understood the importance of gaining consent form people.Staff wellbeing and support was not managed well. Staff told us they felt unsupported and were not able to approach the registered manager for advice. Although people living at the home were treated with kindness and respect, the relationship between the registered manager and some professionals was poor with communication highlighted as an issue. These are areas that required improvement. Day to day people were treated well and their independence was promoted. People’s immediate needs were responded to in a timely way.Although people’s care and support were person centred this was not reflected in care plans which were, in most cases, out of date and did not reflect people’s current needs. Feedback was mixed from relatives relating to the complaints process with some saying they would not know how to make a complaint. There were few activities for people and no activities co-ordinator. There were no records kept of discussions about advanced decisions about future care arrangements. These were all areas that required improvement. Relatives told us that regular communications with the home were good and that they were informed of incidents or updates relating to their loved ones.

  • Safe No rating
  • Effective No rating
  • Caring No rating
  • Responsive No rating
  • Well-led No rating
Read the rest of CQC's summary
  1. Safe

    No rating

    Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

    This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated requires improvement.

    This meant some aspects of the service were not always safe and there was limited assurance about safety. There was an increased risk that people could be harmed.

    The service was in breach of legal regulations in relation to people’s safe care and treatment,. environmental risks, fire safety medicine management and safe staffing.

  2. Effective

    No rating

    Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

    This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated requires improvement.

    This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

  3. Caring

    No rating

    Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

    This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated requires improvement.

    This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

  4. Responsive

    No rating

    Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

    This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated requires improvement.

    This meant people’s needs were not always met.

  5. Well-led

    No rating

    Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

    This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated requires improvement.

    This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

    The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to the governance of the service.

    This included lack of oversight of care plans, risk assessments and learning lessons. Also, staff opportunities to speak up.

Questions to ask when you visit

  1. Safe was rated Requires improvement on 10 February 2026. Ask how medicines are managed, how staffing levels are decided and how incidents are reviewed.
  2. Effective was rated Requires improvement on 10 February 2026. Ask about staff training and how health appointments are arranged.
  3. Caring was rated Requires improvement on 10 February 2026. Ask how staff protect dignity and how residents are involved in decisions about their care.
  4. Responsive was rated Requires improvement on 10 February 2026. Ask to see how care plans are kept up to date, how complaints are handled and what activities are on offer.

Registration details

Registered manager
Emma Field
Registered with the CQC since
What it provides
Care home service without nursing
Who it supports
Dementia, Older People

Inspection report

Read the full inspection report (opens the Care Quality Commission website)

The rating is the Care Quality Commission's. We show it as published and do not change it.

Who runs it

Ownership type
Organisation
Companies House number
13140849 (opens Companies House)

HomesCare Ltd runs 3 services, all in the South East. 1 is rated Good or Outstanding and 2 are rated Requires improvement or Inadequate.

Other services run by HomesCare Ltd

  1. G
    Seaford Family Care Good. Home care, East Sussex
  2. RI
    Homescare Ltd - Peacehaven Requires improvement. Care home, East Sussex

Getting help from East Sussex County Council

The council can assess what care someone needs and tell them what help with the cost they may get.

Checked on the council's website, November 2026.

Common questions

Does Seaford Family Care provide nursing care?
No. The Care Quality Commission lists Seaford Family Care as a care home without nursing.
How many beds does Seaford Family Care have?
The Care Quality Commission's register lists 19 beds at Seaford Family Care.
When was Seaford Family Care last inspected?
The Care Quality Commission's latest rating for Seaford Family Care was published on 10 February 2026.
Who runs Seaford Family Care?
Seaford Family Care is run by HomesCare Ltd. It runs 3 services, all in the South East.
What is Seaford Family Care's CQC rating?
Its overall rating from the Care Quality Commission is Requires improvement, published on 10 February 2026.

Contact

Phone
07368 923042
Address
40-42 Claremont Road, Seaford, BN25 2BD Map (opens Google Maps)
Read the full inspection report (opens the Care Quality Commission website)

Compare nearby

Nearest rated Good or Outstanding: Maldon House (Good, 0.2 miles away) and Nova House (Good, 0.2 miles away).

Nearest care homes:

  1. –
    Seaford Family Care Limited Not yet rated, less than 0.1 miles away
  2. G
    Maldon House Good, 0.2 miles away
  3. G
    Nova House Good, 0.2 miles away
  4. RI
    Freshford Cottage Nursing Home Requires improvement, 0.2 miles away
  5. G
    Threeways Nursing Home Good, 0.3 miles away

See all care homes in East Sussex

See all care homes in Seaford