Seaview

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

The key question of Responsive was rated Good at our last inspection. Although we found areas of concern at this assessment, until we have assessed more quality statements in Responsive the rating for this service remains the same. We found a breach of regulation in relation to person centred care, people did not always receive support following Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture guidance. Staff had not consistently identified when people had specific needs and had not ensured they received the support they needed.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Person-centred Care during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

A relative told us they felt their loved one was not supported to take part in a range of pastimes in their local community. They told us their relative went to the same places for a drink and was not supported to explore other cafes and restaurants. They felt community involvement was limited, especially at the weekends and their loved one may be bored at times. A relative told us their loved one had requested, several times, to move to a downstairs room when one became available. This was to support and maintain their independence. This request had not been acted on and the person had not been supported to change bedroom when a ground floor room was available. People told us they were not supported to prepare meals, such as breakfast or lunch. A relative told us their loved one had previously been supported to plan meals, shop for ingredients and prepare them, which they had enjoyed. They told us this no longer happened and they had not been told why. The person continued to demonstrate these skills when visiting their family and their relative felt staff were not supporting their loved one to be as independent as possible.

Staff told us that they supported people to reduce the risk of people experiencing inequality. Staff told us people were regularly able to visit healthcare professionals, for example the dentist had adaptations in place to ensure people could access the building. Staff told us they supported people to do the activities they wanted to, for example some people enjoyed going to the pub and staff told us they supported people to go. Staff told us that one person had a partner, and was supported to spend time with them when they wanted, and communicate via telephone.

There were no effective systems in place to assess people's life skills and plans to improve people's skills. People were not supported to complete everyday tasks and staff completed these for people. People's support plans did not contain information about what people were able to do and how this had been assessed. People had not been supported to discuss their goals and aspirations about how they lived their life and promote their independence. There were activity planners displayed within the service, but these were not being followed. The systems in place to make sure people were supported to take part in activities they wanted had not been effective. The registered manager had not identified people were not accessing all parts of the community. When people had a disability such as poor eyesight, staff had not received training to make sure they were supported to access the community safely. The systems in place within the service did not promote people's independence or provide person centred support. People's medicines were kept in the office and people were expected to go to the office to have their medicines. This process was not following Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture guidance.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.