Seaview

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

The key question of Well Led was rated Good at our last inspection. Although we found areas of concern at this assessment, until we have assessed more quality statements in Well Led the rating for this service remains the same. We found a breach of regulation in relation to the governance and oversight of the service. The provider had not consistently identified shortfalls within the service. The registered manager had not ensured people were safe and received support following Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture guidance.

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.

We did not look at Shared direction and culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Freedom to speak up during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

The operations manager told us that following an incident, a decision was made to have a provider audit completed. On the day of our inspection, the audit was taking place, and the operations manager told us they would use it as an opportunity to make improvements. The shortfalls we discussed with the registered manager were acknowledged, and they and the operations manager told us they would look to address them. For example, handovers were due to be discussed within the next team meeting to inform staff how to use them more effectively. Staff gave positive feedback about the registered manager and operations manager. They told us, “You can call [registered manager] at any time. At midnight and he will call you back. If you need him he will come around.”

The provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service, however, these had not always been effective in identifying the shortfalls found at this assessment. The provider was in the process of completing a quality audit during the on site assessment. This was being completed in response to an incident which highlighted concerns about staff understanding of risk and reporting incidents. Previously, quarterly audits completed by the operations director had identified some shortfalls in the registered managers audits and with some processes within the service but these audits had not covered all areas of the service. Later audits showed the registered manager had not completed action plans as required and the shortfalls remained at this assessment. The audits had not identified safeguarding concerns were not being consistently identified and raised, accidents and accidents had not been consistently recorded and action had not been taken to reduce risk. Following the on site assessment the operations director had taken appropriate action to rectify the shortfalls and changes were made within the service to improve people's experience of living at the service.

We did not look at Partnerships and communities during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Learning, improvement and innovation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.