The inspection took place on 14 December 2016 and was unannounced. Seaford Head Retirement Home provides accommodation and personal care for up to 16 older people living with dementia. 13 people were using the service at the time of the inspection.

There was a registered manager was in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.

The previous inspection of the service took place in April 2014. The service met all the regulations we checked at that time.

Staff knew how to identify abuse and report any concerns following the provider’s safeguarding procedures to keep people safe. Staff had confidence in the management team to deal with safeguarding issues promptly and effectively. Risks to people's health and safety were assessed, managed appropriately and recorded in their care plans.

Accidents and incidents were recorded and monitored to identify how the risks of reoccurrence could be reduced.

The provider had a robust recruitment and selection process to ensure staff had the right skills and experience to support people who used the service. People received support from suitably vetted staff.

There were enough competent and suitably qualified staff to support people. Staff knew people well which helped to ensure consistency of care.

There were safe arrangements in place for managing people’s medicines. People received their medicines safely when needed from staff with the relevant training and competency.

Staff received regular training to ensure they had the skills and knowledge to care for people effectively. Staff received supervisions and appraisals to monitor their performance and professional development. Staff felt supported to undertake their role.

There were systems in place which ensured staff complied with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. People consented to care and treatment.

People received support to maintain a balanced diet and to have enough to eat and drink. People chose their meals according to their likes and dislikes and were involved as much as they were able in making choices about their food. Staff knew about and provided for people’s dietary preferences and needs.

People’s health care needs were monitored. Staff supported people to access healthcare services for support and advice to promote people’s well-being.

Staff provided support to people in a kind and caring manner. People were treated with dignity and respect. Staff had developed positive and trusting relationships with people and their relatives. Staff supported people to develop friendships with other people at the service.

People and staff were encouraged to give their views about the service and their feedback was used to drive improvement. People knew how to make a complaint if they were not happy about their care. People and their relatives had information about how to use the complaints process and they said their concerns were addressed in a timely manner.

People were involved in making decisions about how they wanted to spend their time and their day to day care. Staff promoted people’s independence and encouraged people to do as much as possible for themselves.

People received care that responded to their individual care and support needs. Staff assessed people’s needs and knew their wishes and preferences.

People and staff described the registered manager as approachable and effective. An open culture put people at the centre of their care and support.

There was an effective quality assurance sys

At the time of our inspection the service provided care and support to 13 people. As part of our inspection we spoke with six people who used the service two visiting relatives and a visiting health care professional. We also spoke with four staff members and the home manager.

The focus of the inspection was to answer five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people who used the service, their relatives and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.

To see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

This is a summary of what we found:

Is the service safe?

People had been cared for in an environment that was safe, and well maintained. Equipment and services in the home had been well maintained and serviced regularly.

Risk assessments were in place to provide information to staff to help minimise the risk of any harm to people.

All feedback indicated that there was enough staff and they were competent in the work they undertook.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. Staff were able to describe when a DoLS had been put in place in the past and why this had been used. Staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made, and the manager knew how to submit and review one.

Is the service effective?

We saw individual plans of care were in place. There was evidence to confirm that these were reviewed and updated to reflect any changing need.

People told us that they received the care they required and were well cared for. People said, “I am quite happy here thank you.” Direct observation and discussion with staff confirmed staff were knowledgeable about people’s care and social support needs.

Training records seen confirmed staff had received appropriate training to meet the needs of people living at the home.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and caring staff. We saw that staff were patient and gave encouragement when supporting people.

Our observations confirmed that people were encouraged to be independent but were helped when they needed any support.

Is the service responsive?

We saw that people’s needs had been assessed before they moved into the home. Individual care plans were developed for each person following admission. People were given choices and when they declined, this was responded to appropriately. People had access to activities and had been supported to maintain relationships with their friends and relatives. Staff and people talked about the dogs and other pets that came to the home for petting.

Is the service well-led?

We saw that a number of quality assurance processes were in place. These included feedback from people who used the service and their representatives.

People, visitors and staff told us that if they had any concerns they would speak with the manager. Everyone spoken with told us that they had no reason to complain but felt that if they did any issue would be dealt with effectively.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. The manager told us a deputy manager was to be appointed. Senior care staff worked in the home alongside more junior staff to lead the shift. Staff said they were kept up to date with any changes as required.

During our inspection we spoke with three people who used the service and two visiting relatives. We also spoke with five staff members; these were the care manager, a senior care worker and three care workers. We also took information from other sources to help us understand the views of people who used the service, which included a relatives' survey and meeting minutes.

The people we spoke with told us they were happy with the care they had received and with the staff team. One person who used the service told us, "The staff are always here to help me. They are helpful and find solutions to all my problems.” Another person who used the service told us, "I definitely get proper treatment here, I really like it.” Staff we spoke with had a good understanding of the support needs of the people who used the service. One member of staff we spoke with told us, "The residents are at the centre of everything we do here.”

Staff we spoke with confirmed that they felt supported and had received relevant training, which included the safeguarding of vulnerable adults. Staff told us that they understood the signs of abuse and were aware of how to raise concerns.

We also saw evidence that the provider had an effective recruitment and selection procedure in place to ensure that staff were qualified to do their job.

The provider had appropriate systems in place to gather information about the safety and quality of the service.