We carried out a review of the data available to us about Seymour House on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Seymour House, you can give feedback on this service.
The service continued to provide high quality, person centred care. Potential risks to people had been assessed and there was detailed guidance in place for staff to follow to mitigate the risks. Staff supported people to live their lives to the full.
There was an effective system to monitor the quality of the support provided. Information from audits, accidents and incidents were used to drive improvements within the service. Staff received training and supervision to improve their practice and development to ensure people received person centred care.
Staff knew people well and how to communicate effectively with them. Staff supported people effectively to provide positive behaviour support and to be as independent as possible and learn new skills. Staff respected people’s decisions about their care.
People were supported to take part in activities they enjoyed. Staff continued to support people to develop links with the community. People indicated that they were happy living at the service and were comfortable in the company of staff.
More information is in the detailed findings below.
Rating at the last inspection:
Good (report published 8 July 2016).
About the service:
Seymour House is a residential care home that accommodates up to six people living with learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorder. At the time of the inspection, six people were living at the service. The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidelines. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary life as any citizen ‘Registering the Right Support’ CQC policy.
Why we inspected:
This was a planned inspection based on the rating of the last inspection. We found that the service continued to meet the characteristics of Good in all areas. The overall rating is Good.
Follow up:
We will continue to monitor the service through the information we receive.
Seymour House is a care home supporting up to six people who have a learning disability. There were six people living at the service when we inspected. The service provides accommodation and personal care support. There is 24 hour staffing including sleep-in staff at night.
The registered manager and locality manager were both present during 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.
Staff had completed safeguarding training and knew what action to take if they suspected abuse, and who to report abuse to, such as the local authority safeguarding team. Staff told us they felt confident to discuss any safeguarding concerns with the registered manager. People told us they felt safe, were well looked after and happy.
All risks to people’s safety had been assessed and were managed in line with individual risk assessments. Risk assessments for each person were detailed taking into account each person’s specific needs. People were involved in writing their care plans and risk assessments. Care plans and risk assessments were written in an easy read format to make them more meaningful to people.
All accidents and incidents were recorded and monitored by the registered manager. The registered manager looked for any patterns so they could take action to prevent further incidents.
Plans were in place for emergencies, like a fire or a flood, and staff knew what to do in the event of an emergency. Safety checks were carried out regularly throughout the building, there were regular fire drills and people knew how to leave the building safely.
People were encouraged to take risks and were not restricted from doing what they wanted to do. People were supported to attend activities. During the morning of the inspection some people were going to a farm whilst others stayed at home. During the day people were asked if they would like to go to the shops or for a walk and some people took this opportunity.
Safe recruitment procedures were in place. New staff worked through an induction and period of shadowing colleagues before they worked with people alone. New staff read people’s care plans to familiarise themselves with people’s needs and got to know them before starting to support them. The provider had plan in place to involve people in the recruitment of staff.
There were enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs; most of the staff had been at Seymour House for a long time and knew people well.
Staff had knowledge and skills to carry out their roles and responsibilities. A training programme was in place to support staff to keep their knowledge up to date. Staff were encouraged to work towards qualifications if they wished to do so.
Staff received support through regular face to face supervision. Team meetings were held with the registered manager to update staff on relevant matters. Staff expressed confidence in the management team and said they would not hesitate to discuss any concerns they had with the registered manager.
Staff sought people’s consent before supporting them and involved people in making decisions. Staff regularly asked people for their views encouraging them to make decisions for themselves in line with guidance for seeking consent. When people could not make decisions for themselves the registered manager and staff followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to assist and make decisions in people’s best interests.
People were supported to maintain healthy diets. People were involved in meal planning, writing the menus and with the cooking. Easy read menus were in the kitchen so that everyone knew the meals they were having. There was flexibility and further choice for those who did not want the menu options. Dietary needs were assessed and considered and people had support from dieticians when they needed it.
Medicines were managed safely. Medicines were stored in people’s rooms and staff monitored this. People were supported to take their medicine safely. People were supported to maintain good health and had access to healthcare services. People received support from dietitians, GP’s, dentist and other healthcare professionals. One relative told us, “(My loved one) hadn’t had her toe nails cut so the manager arranged for regular chiropodist visits”.
People said they had good caring relationships with staff who knew people very well. Staff treated people with kindness and compassion. People felt listened to and involved in the running of the service. One person said, “My keyworker knows my family well”. One relative said “They are a very caring group of staff.” Relatives we spoke with told us they got on well with the staff. One relative said, “The atmosphere in the service was calm and people were happy”.
Relatives told us they were always welcomed when they visited and they could visit when they wanted to. One relative said, “I visit at various times and I am always made to feel welcome” Another relative said, “I am very pleased with how the home is run (relating to developing relationships)”.
People talked positively about the staff. One person said, “I like it here, people are nice”. “I like the staff they take us shopping and I like cooking and the food.” Staff encouraged people to be as independent as possible. One person said, “I make my own tea but sometimes I need help.”
People received care that was responsive to their needs. Arrangements were in place for individual needs to be assessed and regularly reviewed. People were supported to follow their interests such as taking part in social activities and interests.
People were supported to raise concerns. There was a complaints system in place and an easy read version was displayed on the notice board in the lounge. Staff were aware of the complaints procedures and said they supported people if they wanted to raise a concern. The registered manager told us they listened to people and followed up on people’s concerns if there was a problem.There was a positive culture in the service and openness was encouraged. Staff were confident to go to the managers if they had concerns and told us the managers were approachable.
People and their relatives told us the service was well led. One relative said, “The manager is superb and very responsive.”
The registered manager sought the views of people, relatives, health professionals, and staff and responded in order to improve the service. The menus had been changed recently based on people’s feedback.
Regular audits and checks were completed to monitor the quality of the service and identify improvements. One relative said, “I have received surveys which I have responded to and changes to the service were made as a result of suggestions made”. Other audits carried out included looking at the quality of records and medicine management.
Services that provide health and social care to people are required to inform the CQC of important events that happen in the service. The CQC check that appropriate action had been taken. There were no such significant events at the home that required the registered manager to notify the CQC.
We found that people were provided with suitable accommodation and the service had a homely atmosphere. We saw care plans which were person centred and found that the home worked well with health and social care professionals who often visited people within the home.
People told us and we saw that they had regular meetings with staff to make sure they were happy and we saw any suggestions from people who used the service were acted upon. In addition, we saw that staff had regular meetings to discuss changes in people's care and support and that staff had a detailed handover each day when the shifts changed.
We found that there were care plans, health files and person centred plans in place for all people that used the service and that these were regularly reviewed and changes made as necessary.
We saw that people were treated with dignity and respect and had choice, and their views and needs were taken into account.
We found that there were enough staff on duty to meet people's needs. Records showed that staff had been properly recruited, trained and supervised and that the service had systems in place to safeguard people.
We found that the service had monitored the quality of care people received and acted on any issues that had arisen.