• Care Home
  • Care home

Seacliff Care Home

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

9 Percy Road, Boscombe, Bournemouth, Dorset, BH5 1JF (01202) 396100

Provided and run by:
Mr Munundev Gunputh & Mrs Dhudrayne Gunputh

All Inspections

17 April 2023

During an inspection looking at part of the service

About the service

Seacliff Care Home is a residential care home registered to provide care and support to up to 24 people. The service provides support to older people some of whom were living with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 21 people using the service.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Improvements had been made to the quality assurance and oversight processes within the home. A variety of audits and checks meant there was consideration to continual improvement. Medicines procedures were strengthened, and good practice guidance was key to the improvements made.

People, their relatives and staff told us Seacliff Care Home was a safe place to be. There were enough staff on duty, and they had been recruited using robust, safe processes. Staff knew how to identify, and report concerns about people, they were confident matters would be followed up.

People had risk assessments in place for all their care and support. Assessments were reviewed regularly and supported people to live their life the way they wanted to. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People were protected from avoidable infections; the home was clean and hygiene processes were in place. Accidents and incidents were recorded and reviewed to ensure lessons were learned within the home.

Staff felt appreciated and proud to work at Seacliff Care Home. They were complimentary about the leadership of the home and their colleagues. The registered manager understood their regulatory responsibilities.

Staff knew and understood their job role and tasks were defined. The home sought to work in partnership with a range of external professionals including making links within their local community. Seacliff Care Home actively sought feedback on the quality of the care provided and used the information to continually improve.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection and update

The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 3 February 2022). The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.

At our last inspection we recommended that the provider follow good practice guidelines for the safe management of medicines. At this inspection we found the provider had acted on the recommendation and were operating safe practices.

Why we inspected

This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service.

For those key questions not inspected, we used the ratings awarded at the last inspection to calculate the overall rating.

The overall rating for the service has changed from requires improvement to good based on the findings of this inspection.

We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.

10 January 2022

During an inspection looking at part of the service

About the service

Seacliff Care Home is a 'care home' registered to accommodate up to 24 people. At the time of our inspection there were 17 older people living in one adapted building in a residential area of Bournemouth.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Improvements were needed to the governance systems within the home. Improvements that had been introduced following our last inspection were not robust and had not been sustained. The systems for monitoring and checking the home operates in a safe way were not effective.

Medicines were not always managed in a safe way, records of medicines that required stricter controls were not completed in accordance with the providers policy. Risk assessments were in place for people and detailed. However, they had not been updated and reviewed as planned.

Staffing levels were not always stable. Although no impact on people was identified staff shortages due to sickness had an effect on staff morale and the registered manager and provider was working to improve this. Staff understood how to recognise the signs of abuse and who to report to. People, relatives and staff felt confident any concerns would be followed up. Staff were recruited safely.

Infection prevention and control measures in place were robust and this contributed to keeping people from avoidable harm. One relative told us they follow all safety procedures within the home and said, “There has never been a drop in cleanliness.”

Staff were proud to work for Seacliff Care Home and external professionals were complimentary about their working relationship with the home.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection (and update)

The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 17 December 2020) and there were two breaches of regulation. We had since followed up through targeted inspections and found the provider was no longer in breach of the regulations. At this inspection we found the improvements made had not been sustained and this has resulted in a new breach of regulation. The service remains rated requires improvement. This service has been rated requires improvement for the last two consecutive inspections.

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.

Enforcement

We are mindful of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on our regulatory function. This meant we took account of the exceptional circumstances arising as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic when considering what enforcement action was necessary and proportionate to keep people safe as a result of this inspection. We will continue to discharge our regulatory enforcement functions required to keep people safe and to hold providers to account where it is necessary for us to do so.

We have identified a breach in relation to the management and providers oversight at this inspection. Please see the action we have told the provider to take at the end of this report.

Follow up

We will request an action plan and meet with the provider following this report being published to discuss how they will make changes to ensure they improve their rating to at least good. We will work with the local authority to monitor progress. We will return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

8 April 2021

During an inspection looking at part of the service

About the service

Seacliff Care Home is a 'care home' registered to accommodate up to 24 people. At the time of our inspection there were 12 older people living in one adapted building in a residential area of Bournemouth.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Improvements have been made to the governance systems since our last inspection. Quality audits were completed and analysed to identify patterns, learning and changes to the ways of working. Audits included infection prevention and control, medicines and fire safety.

People and staff were positive about the changes within the home. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities. The manager and deputy manager told us they worked well together and were supported by the provider. The provider told us they were committed to maintaining and continuing the improvements within the home.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection and update

The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 17 December 2020) and there were multiple breaches of regulation. Following the last inspection, we told the provider when they must be compliant and meet the regulations. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.

Why we inspected

We undertook this targeted inspection to check whether the Warning Notice we previously served in relation to Regulation 17 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 had been met. The overall rating for the service has not changed following this targeted inspection and remains requires improvement.

CQC have introduced targeted inspections to follow up on Warning Notices or to check specific concerns. They do not look at an entire key question, only the part of the key question we are specifically concerned about. Targeted inspections do not change the rating from the previous inspection. This is because they do not assess all areas of a key question.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

18 January 2021

During an inspection looking at part of the service

About the service

Seacliff Care Home is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided.

Seacliff Care Home is registered to accommodate up to 24 people. At the time of our inspection there were 15 older people living in one adapted building in a residential area of Bournemouth.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Improvements had been made within the home since our last inspection. Infection control procedures had been reviewed and improved. There was a clear procedure for welcoming visitors to the home safely. Staff had enough personal protective equipment (PPE) to keep them safe and we observed this was worn correctly. Cleaning within the home had visibly improved.

Improvements had been made in regard to managing the Coronavirus pandemic within the home. A dedicated testing room had been created so the home could participate in testing of staff and the people living at Seacliff Care Home. The room was organised, private and clean. People and visitors said it was a nice environment which enabled them to have privacy.

Medicines were managed safely. There was a dedicated medicines room which was clean, well- stocked and organised. Managers and staff felt proud of the improvements made, they told us they were committed to continuing the improvements within the home.

People’s risks were assessed, and the home continued to organise people’s care files to make them easier to use and refer to. The home had undergone internal redecoration and organising which had improved the cleanliness, environment and safety for people as they move around the home.

People and staff told us they were happy at Seacliff Care Home and felt that improvements had been made. Staff were proud to work at the home and told us there was a sense of teamwork in the home, working together for the people they provide care for.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection and update

The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 17 December 2020) and there were multiple breaches of regulation. Following the last inspection we told the provider when they must be compliant and meet the regulations. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulation 12.

Why we inspected

We undertook this targeted inspection to check whether the Warning Notice we previously served in relation to Regulation 12 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 had been met. The overall rating for the service has not changed following this targeted inspection and remains requires improvement.

CQC have introduced targeted inspections to follow up on Warning Notices or to check specific concerns. They do not look at an entire key question, only the part of the key question we are specifically concerned about. Targeted inspections do not change the rating from the previous inspection. This is because they do not assess all areas of a key question.

We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to coronavirus and other infection outbreaks effectively.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

26 November 2020

During an inspection looking at part of the service

About the service

Seacliff Care Home is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided.

Seacliff Care Home is registered to accommodate up to 24 people. At the time of our inspection there were 17 older people living in one adapted building in a residential area of Bournemouth.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People told us they were happy living at Seacliff Care Home. However, we identified several shortfalls and governance systems were not robust enough to keep people and staff safe. Infection control procedures were either not in place or robust enough to fully protect people. Fire safety concerns had been identified but actions were not taken.

Potential risks to people's health and welfare had not been consistently assessed. There was not always guidance for staff to mitigate the risks. Records of the care people received were not always accurate or complete. Medicines were not always managed safely. Testing had indicated a risk of Legionella in the water system. The home was working in partnership with the environmental health office and an external water specialist to mitigate the risk.

There were enough staff on duty and people told us they attended to their needs promptly. Staff told us they were happy working at Seacliff and had confidence in the newly appointed management of the home. Staff were recruited safely, and the necessary checks had been made. Safeguarding procedures were in place and followed, staff told us they were confident the manager would follow up on concerns raised.

Staff, people and their relatives felt involved in the home. However, this was reduced during the pandemic and alternative arrangements had been made for contact and visiting. The home had links with various organisations but the manager said this had reduced during the year but was hoping to build on these in the future.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published 26 July 2018).

Why we inspected

We received concerns in relation to fire safety, infection control, medicines and the management of the service. As a result, we undertook a focused inspection to review the key questions of safe and well-led only.

We reviewed the information we held about the service. No areas of concern were identified in the other key questions. We therefore did not inspect them. Ratings from previous comprehensive inspections for those key questions were used in calculating the overall rating at this inspection.

We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to coronavirus and other infection outbreaks effectively.

The overall rating for the service has changed from good to requires improvement. This is based on the findings at this inspection.

You can see what action we have asked the provider to take at the end of this full report.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Seacliff Care Home on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Enforcement

We are mindful of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on our regulatory function. This meant we took account of the exceptional circumstances arising as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic when considering what enforcement action was necessary and proportionate to keep people safe as a result of this inspection. We will continue to discharge our regulatory enforcement functions required to keep people safe and to hold providers to account where it is necessary for us to do so.

We have identified breaches in relation to the safe care and treatment of people and the management of the service at this inspection.

Full information about CQC’s regulatory response to the more serious concerns found during inspections is added to reports after any representations and appeals have been concluded.

Follow up

We will request an action plan for the provider to understand what they will do to improve the standards of quality and safety. We will work alongside the provider and local authority to monitor progress. We will return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

16 June 2018

During a routine inspection

Seacliff Care Home is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Seacliff Care Home is registered to accommodate up to 24 people. At the time of our 20 older people were living in the home in one adapted building in a residential area of Bournemouth.

At our last inspection we rated the service Good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of Good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and on going monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

People were supported by staff who understood the risks they faced and the support they needed to reduce these risks. Staff understood how to identify and report abuse. Staff also supported people to take their medicines safely.

People all liked the food and there were systems in place to ensure they ate and drank safely.

People were supported by caring staff who had the skills and knowledge they needed. The majority of the staff team had worked in the home for a long time and they all knew people well. This ensured people were supported to live their life the way they chose. People had access to activities they enjoyed and helped to plan.

Communication needs were considered and staff supported people to understand the choices available to them. This meant people were supported to have choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the systems in the service supported this practice. Paperwork reflecting the MCA was being reviewed when we inspected. Where people needed to be deprived of their liberty to receive care this had been identified and responded to appropriately.

People and relatives told us they could raise any concerns and these were addressed quickly. They told us that the manager, provider and the whole staff team were approachable.

Quality assurance systems involved people and was being developed to support the provision of a safe and good quality service.

25 & 26 November 2015

During a routine inspection

This unannounced comprehensive inspection took place on 25 and 26 November 2015. At the last inspection completed in November 2013 we found the provider had met the regulations we reviewed.

At this inspection we identified a breach regarding the lack of appropriate information in relation to the care and treatment in people’s care records. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

Seacliff Care Home provides accommodation, care and support for up to 24 older people. At the time of the inspection there were 20 people living at the home. There was a registered manager at the home at the time of the inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People told us they liked living at the home, comments from people included, “I’m very happy here” and, “I have everything I need”. People told us they felt safe at the home. Staff spoke knowledgably on how to prevent, identify and report abuse and the provider had a system in place to protect people from the risk of harm.

People’s needs were assessed including areas of risk, and reviewed each month to ensure their safety. Staff supported people in accordance with their wishes, protecting people’s privacy and maintaining their dignity. People and their relatives were involved in assessing and planning the care and support they received.

Appropriate arrangements were in place for the storage and disposal of medicines. People received their prescribed medicine when they needed it, however people’s records did not always show when they had received their prescribed creams. Some people’s Medication Administration Records had not been completed in respect of their prescribed creams and some people’s daily notes were not fully completed.

Equipment such as electric stand aids, hoists and pressure relieving mattresses and cushions and mobility aids were readily available, well maintained and used safely by staff in accordance with people’s risk assessments.

There was a system in place to ensure people were cared for, or supported by, sufficient numbers of suitably qualified and experienced staff. Robust recruitment and selection procedures were in place. The manager was in the process of recruiting a further two staff to replace two members of staff who were leaving. Staff felt well supported and said the training they received gave them good, practical skills and knowledge to carry out their role.

The manager was aware of their responsibilities in regard to the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). These safeguards aim to protect people living in care homes and hospitals from being inappropriately deprived of their liberty. These safeguards can only be used when there is no other way of supporting a person safely. People were supported to make decisions and where people did not have the capacity, decisions were made in their best interests.

People were supported and provided with a choice of healthy, home cooked food and drink which ensured their nutritional needs were met. People commented positively on the quality and quantity of the food.

The premises were undergoing decoration and some refurbishment. This included new carpeting in some of the communal corridors, new flooring, tiling and redecoration in the kitchen and re decoration of the walls on the ground floor. Overall, the home had a bright, airy feel.

People knew how to make a complaint although no one we spoke with told us they had felt the need to make a complaint. There was a system in place for people to raise concerns and complaints and records showed the manager followed the system when complaints were received.

People told us they felt the service was well led, with a clear management structure in place.

There were systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided.

21 November 2013

During a routine inspection

On the day of our inspection there were 14 people living at Seacliff Care Home. Eight of the people were living in the home on a permanent basis. The other people were there to receive "interim care" because they had been discharged from hospital but were waiting for arrangements to be made for them to return to their own homes. We spoke with seven of the people who lived there, the manager, three care workers and a cleaner. Everyone we spoke with made positive comments about the home. One person told us " All the staff are very kind", another person who was staying at the home on a temporary basis, told us "It's been extraordinary, much better than I thought it would be".

People experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights. They were cared for by, suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff that were safely recruited.

The provider had suitable quality assurance procedures in place to manage the health and welfare of people living in the home. People were able to comment on the service provided.

18 December 2012

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an unannounced inspection at Seacliff to review a warning notice for assessing and monitoring the quality of service provision. We also reviewed compliance actions for respecting and involving people who use services, care and welfare, requirements relating to workers, supporting workers and records.

At the time of this inspection Seacliff was caring for two individuals who lived at the home. We spoke with one person, one care worker and the manager.

People living at Seacliff were not able to fully discuss their experience of living at Seacliff as they had cognitive impairments. We therefore spent time observing people and looking at records.

We observed care workers interacted politely and respectfully with the people they were supporting.

We found that care plans reflected people's needs and were person centred. The individual we spoke with said 'staff are very good' and also complimented the homes meal provision stating 'I can't complain about the food at all'.

People who use the service were protected against the risks of unsafe or unsuitable premises.

We found there were effective recruitment and selection processes in place, and people were cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard.

There were systems in place that ensured the quality of the service people received was maintained and improved.

People's personal records were accurate and fit for purpose.

19, 23, 24 September 2012

During an inspection in response to concerns

We completed this inspection on 19, 23 and 24 September 2012 to respond to concerns raised about the quality of care people received, and to follow up on compliance actions made on a previous inspection in May 2012.

People living at the home were not able to tell us about their experiences owing to dementia. Because people with dementia and/ or complex needs are not always able to reliably tell us about their experiences, we spent a majority of the visit observing people and looking at some records.

We found that people's privacy, dignity and independence were not always respected.

We examined records for five people living at the home and found that there were significant issues in the delivery of their care.

People were generally protected against the unsafe use and management of medicines. However there were some gaps in the recording of prescribed creams.

We examined staff records and found that suitable checks had not been completed. In addition, training records evidenced some staff had not received appropriate training or support.

At this inspection we found errors in record keeping which meant the provider could not be sure people's needs were fully met in line with their assessed need and care plan.

The provider had some systems to ensure the quality of service people received, however the system was not robust and did not ensure that people were protected against the risks associated with unsafe or inappropriate care.

10 May 2012

During a routine inspection

At the time of our visit on Thursday 10 May 2012 there were 16 people living in the home. The majority of people were not able to tell us about their experiences of living at Seacliff Residential Home due to their condition. In order to assess their experiences we used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experiences of people who could not talk to us. We also gathered evidence of people's experiences by reviewing records and documents and talking to visitors and staff.

Two visitors told us they were satisfied with they care and support their relative received. They said that Seacliff kept them informed of changes in their relative's conditions and staff were approachable.

One relative told us 'I come for meals and the food is good'.

The visitors said they were able to comment on service provision and were aware of how to make a complaint.

One relative told us 'residents are well looked after and treated with respect'.

We spoke with five members of staff working at the home about the service provided to people and their knowledge and skills. The manager told us that staff had received basic training in dementia care, but had not had the opportunity to undertake specialist training to support their understanding and skills when working with people who have memory loss. The manager told us the providers had investigated sources for further training in this area.

We spoke briefly with three people who lived in the home. People told us they felt well looked after and had no complaints with the service that was provided.

People received support from relevant professionals to meet their various physical and mental health needs. People's care plans were detailed and up to date. This helped staff to provide individuals with the support they wanted or needed. Staff were seen to be polite and pleasant when engaging with people.

The manager told us that they had recently resigned and that the providers had started the recruitment process to appoint a new registered manager. The manager said that the providers work in the home every day and are actively involved in managing the service.

The manager told us that the home had not admitted new residents recently due to concerns raised by local service commissioners. The manager described some of the actions they had taken to resolve concerns and told us they were continuing to work with the local authority to improve the service for people living in the home.

27 July 2011

During an inspection in response to concerns

The majority of people who live at Seacliff Care Home were not able to give an account of what it was like to live there because of their mental frailty; We were however able to speak with two people who were able to tell us what they thought about the service they received. They told us that that the staff looked after them and that they were kind and courteous. They said that their medicine was looked after for them and they received it when they needed it. They told us that the food was good and that there was plenty of it. They also said that doctors' appointments were arranged for them when they were unwell and that nurses visited them to provider treatment id it was necessary and that a visiting chiropodist looked after their feet. They both told us that they would like to go out more.

We spoke to two visiting relatives during our visit and both spoke positively about the care their relatives living in Seacliff Care home received. Both visitors told us that they called at the home every day to see their respective relatives. One of the visitors said that their relative appeared quite happy to be living in the home. The other said that in their opinion the staff were looking after their relative 'alright'.

We were also able to speak to a visiting health care professional who said that in their view the home had 'come a long way in the last 12 months. They said that the home had managed some people with very difficult behaviours. They also said that the home contacted them appropriately for advice and support.

We spent some time watching and observing the demeanour of a small group of people living in the home and their interactions with each other and members of staff at busy times of the day. These were around two mealtimes, breakfast and lunch. We saw that until staff were available to provide the help that people required the individuals concerned were all somewhat withdrawn and disinterested. When the staff were available to give people the help that they required this was in accordance with individuals' care plans but often with minimal interaction and little meaningful encouragement . Generally staff merely told the people concerned what they were doing, such as lifting them in a hoist or perhaps asking them if they liked what they were giving them to eat. We saw one person expressing distress and agitation, attempting to leave the meal table on several occasions. On each occasion they were either 'instructed' or 'encouraged' to sit down. Eventually the person made it clear that they required to go to the toilet and then they were assisted to do so. The staff approach we witnessed at these particular times was not person centred and did not always support the dignity of the people receiving help.

During the afternoon before we left the premises we did see more positive interaction between staff and people living in the home. A number of social activities were being organised by staff. We noted that people were being encouraged to participate in these and that staff were laughing and joking with people and that everyone appeared relaxed and at ease with each other.

22 March 2011

During a routine inspection

We experienced difficulty obtaining the views of some people using the service because of their enduring and age related mental health problems.

We were however able to observe some staff working practice and also talk to visiting health and social care professionals and relatives of people using the service. We saw that staff were respectful, calm and sensitive when interacting with people using the service and understood the specific and individual needs of people.

People were able to tell us that they enjoyed their food, that staff were polite to them and that their accommodation was comfortable.

Relatives told us that the staff were friendly, effective and took a real interest in the people that they were looking after. They also told us, that the meals provided were 'lovely'. They said that the home communicated well with them and kept them informed about important things concerning their relatives and that the premises were kept clean and well maintained.

Health and social care professionals told us that the quality of care provided had improved since the new manager took over. They also said the home managed challenging behaviour very well and that staff were 'great'.