Seeds Care Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

People had the best possible outcomes because their needs were assessed. Their care, support and treatment reflected these needs and any protected equality characteristics. The service worked in harmony, with people at the centre of their care. People were enabled and encouraged to make their own choices. People were supported to live independently. People were supported within the service and within the community to achieve their goals and aspirations. However, mental capacity assessments were not consistently undertaken according to best practice. Some decisions had been recorded without evidencing that people had been assessed to check if they could understand, retain and weigh up the information in order to communicate their decision about the matter concerned.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People’s health and welfare needs were fully assessed to ensure they were responded to effectively. A relative told us, “The consistency of the staff team at the home has enabled them to develop a detailed understanding of [loved one’s] needs, enabling them to gauge his state of mind, anticipate his responses, and use diverse tactics to prevent escalation. I am satisfied that [loved one] can talk through issues with staff members at any time and that he feels listened to.“

Staff were knowledgeable about people’s care and support needs. They were able to describe people’s preferred routines, the support people needed with their physical and emotional well-being and the best ways to communicate with them. Changes in people’s needs were recorded in the communication book which staff checked and signed before the start of every shift. The care plan was updated with any changes by the team leader daily. Staff told us verbal handovers took place at the start and end of each shift which highlighted any changes, and these were also recorded in the person's diary kept in their room. Staff told us they provided a person time and space alone to explore their sexuality and were working with the district nurse to explore ways to discussing the person's sexual needs more meaningfully with them.

A healthcare professional told us, "We have regular reviews and visits, where we catch up about the young person. Seeds carers are aware of my contact details to get in touch if there is a problem and need support." Local authority commissioners told us about examples earlier in 2024 when people’s care and treatment had not always supported the person to maintain good health, care and wellbeing.

Before people moved into the service their needs were assessed. These assessments were used to develop the person’s care plans and make the decisions about the staffing hours and skills needed to support the person. People were supported by staff through a transition period from moving from previous placements to their new supported living home. Assessments included important information about how best to communicate with people. This included communication passports and tools to guide staff about how people who had limited or no verbal communication presented when they were happy, sad or in pain. People living at the service had access to other health care professionals such as the epilepsy nurse, occupational therapist and a podiatrist.

We did not look at Delivering evidence-based care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Monitoring and improving outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

Relatives consistently told us that the staff were very kind and caring, offering support as needed while also encouraging and reassuring their loved ones to be as independent as possible.

Staff understood people had the capacity to make day to day decisions about their lives. Some people were supported to make decisions by using alternative communication methods such as verbal signs or technology. Staff told us they had involved medical professionals and used social stories to help explain to people their health choices. An advocate was being sought for one person to ensure health decisions were made in their best interest. People's choice and consent was valued, and the staff continually consulted people about their wellbeing and wishes.

We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). When people were assessed as lacking capacity to make decisions appropriate procedures were not always followed to ensure principles within the MCA were followed. People's ability to consent to care and support had been assessed. Where people could not give informed consent, mental capacity assessments had not been consistently undertaken according to best practice. Some decisions had been recorded without evidencing that people had been assessed to check if they could understand, retain and weigh up the information in order to communicate their decision about the matter concerned. For example, it had been assessed that one person consented to their supported living agreement, without recording how this decision had been made. During the assessment the nominated individual for the provider took action to address this and sent some additional assessments of people’s capacity.