Seaview Nursing Home

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

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 told us staff were kind and compassionate and supported them to be as independent as possible. Staff were respectful of people’s need for privacy, and considered dignity routinely when supporting people.

This service scored 70 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Everyone we spoke to told us staff at the service were kind, caring and respectful. One person said, “Staff are without question kind and respectful sometimes a little rushed but its busy home.” Another agreed, saying “Busy but lovely staff - they don’t have much time to sit and talk.” One person told us, “Staff respect my privacy and at the same time they knock on my door and ask if I am okay.”

Staff told us they had attended training about dignity and respect and they had regular opportunities to discuss these topics during their supervision meetings with managers. One said, “The nurses are available to guide us.” Another staff member told us, “We get training in person centred care and I think we do give the residents good care.”

We received feedback from health professionals who told us about the management team, “They are confident in their leadership roles and know their residents well. They manage staff/resources effectively. They call when they need advice.”

We saw throughout our visit staff were responsive and kind in their interactions with people. There was an element of cheerful banter which indicated that staff knew people well. Dignity was considered at all times by staff, such as using screens for privacy when moving people using equipment, and knocking on doors and awaiting a response prior to entering. We saw staff were respectful in the way they spoke with and cared for the people they supported. Staff offered people clothes protectors before meals and told them what they were doing. When people required a change of clothing, they spoke with the person quietly and asked if they could go to their room to change their clothes. We saw a person who was feeling upset, and we saw the staff member spoke to them in a calming and kind way which made them smile. Staff knew people’s preferences, personal histories and backgrounds and used this knowledge to have meaningful interactions. From talking with staff and observing, we were assured staff responded to people’s needs quickly and efficiently, especially if they were in pain, discomfort, or distress. We saw there were printed and laminated symbols on a communication sheet in some of the bedrooms which supported people who were less able to verbally communicate their needs and wishes. We used an observational tool called SOFI (short observational framework of interactions) which helps us to understand and evidence the quality and number of interactions between staff, and people who may not be able to communicate verbally. We found that there was minimal interaction during the mealtime period. This may be in part, due to the staff not having been observed during an assessment or inspection process before. Because of this, we have asked the service to carry out their own audit of meal times, in particular focussing on how people are interacted with by staff.

We did not look at Treating people as individuals during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

One person told us "I make my choices -sometimes I want to stay in my room -I don’t always want to go to the activity" A family member said, "there is always consultation, my relative does have a poor memory and we are his voice, they are very good here and he gets to choose how and where he spends his time." One visitor told us “I visit with [relative] as I can’t manage on my own, we are always welcomed.” People and visitors confirmed that people went out shopping, out for meals with family.

Staff described to us how they encouraged people to be as independent as possible. One staff said, "I offer them the flannel so they can wash their face and front, they usually need help with the back. If they can choose, I show them different clothes so they feel they still can make these choices. [Name] likes to wear a little make-up so we help." Another staff member told us, “We encourage all our residents to be as independent as possible, some need encouragement to walk but we walk with them and offer to help them change position.”

We observed people being asked if they wished to join activity sessions and then being assisted to the main lounge by staff. In some instances, however, we saw people were provided a drink with no choice offered, were given their drink in a beaker which may be the safest option, but was not considered to have been their own choice. We saw people were given choice when dining. Staff supported them to make choices of meal, and then encouraged people to eat as independently as possible, sometimes by offering adapted cutlery.

People were supported to be as independent as possible and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and well-being. Some people were able to tell us they had been involved in care decisions and care planning. There were in-depth best interest records regarding decision making and where people made decisions that were not in their best interest, these were fully explored. People were supported by staff to do as much for themselves as possible as long as it was safe. When people required mobility support to access the bathroom or go to the communal areas, staff supported them and ensured they were safe whilst respecting their dignity. People were prompted to eat and drink and offered support when it was required. People and families were supported by staff to remain in touch by various methods. People had their own mobile or were able to use the office telephone or laptop. People and visitors confirmed that there was open visiting seven days a week. The registered manager has a monthly system of updating and reviewing peoples' care plans and risk assessments to ensure information is current and meaningful.

We did not look at Responding to people’s immediate needs during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

We did not look at Workforce wellbeing and enablement during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.