Sea Gables Residential 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. This inspection took place on 1 and 3 October 2018 and was unannounced. The service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.
Sea Gables is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to seven people and seven people were being accommodated at the time of the inspection. The home is based on two floors and is situated close to local facilities and shops. All bedrooms had en-suite bathrooms and there was a choice of communal areas where people could choose to spend their time.
The home had a registered manager. 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.
At our last inspection, in May 2016, we identified no concerns and rated the service as good. At this inspection, however, we identified some areas for improvement.
CQC were not always notified of significant events. There was a quality assurance process in place, but this was not always used effectively to identifying concerns and bring about improvement.
Best practice guidance was not always followed to ensure medicines were consistently recorded, stored and disposed of safely.
There were clear recruitment procedures in place; however, these were not always followed fully to help ensure only suitable staff were employed.
Arrangements were in place to deal with foreseeable emergencies, although some staff were not clear about the action to take in the event of a fire.
Staff protected people’s rights and acted in their best interests, although they were not always clear about the extent of their role under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Procedures to use low-level interventions, to support people who could behave in a way that put themselves or others at risk, were not robust.
Most staff had received sufficient training to enable them to support people effectively, although a night support worker had not completed some essential training.
Individual risks to people were usually managed effectively and people were involved in risk-taking decisions. Infection risks were managed appropriately for the size and type of service.
People felt safe living at Sea Gables. Staff used innovative techniques to help people understand safeguarding and protect them from the risk of abuse.
There were enough staff available to meet people’s care needs and support them with activities. Staff were appropriately supported in their role by managers.
People’s nutritional and dietary needs were met consistently. The home had been adapted to meet people’s needs.
Staff supported people to access healthcare services when needed and helped ensure they experienced a smooth transition when they moved into or out of the service.
People were supported by kind, caring and compassionate staff who knew them well. They interacted positively with people and helped boost people’s morale and feelings of self-worth through a ‘Housemate of the month’ scheme.
Staff encouraged people to be as independent as possible, used appropriate techniques to communicate with them and involved them in planning the care and support they received.
Staff respected people’s sexuality, privacy and dignity. They supported people to build and maintain relationships with people important to them.
People received personalised care and support from staff who demonstrated a strong commitment to treating them as individuals and putting people at the heart of the service.
People were supported to access the community, take part in a wide range of activities and to lead happy, fulfilled lives. They were encouraged to develop independent living skills by setting personal goals.
Staff promoted choice and were responsive to people’s wishes. People felt able to raise concerns and there was an accessible complaints procedure in place.
There was a clear management structure in place and staff were motivated, happy in their work and felt supported by the management.
Staff demonstrated a commitment to the ethos of the service by supporting people in a personalised way to the best of their abilities.
The views of people, staff and professionals were sought and acted on.
Community links had been developed which benefited people and reduced the risk of them becoming socially isolated.