The inspection took place on 12 July 2017. The inspection was unannounced.

Seaview Care Home is based on the sea front, Saltburn. The home provides personal care for older people and people living with dementia. The service is situated close to the local amenities and transport links. The service is registered to provide personal care for up to 25 people and on the day of our inspection there were 24 people using the service.

The service had a registered manager in place. 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.

We last inspected the service in July 2015 and rated the service as ‘Good.’ At this inspection we found the service remained ‘Good’ and met all the fundamental standards we inspected against.

The atmosphere of the service was relaxed and welcoming. People who used the service and their relatives told us they felt at home and visitors were welcome.

Without exception we saw staff interacting with people attentively with caring attitudes. We spent time observing the support that took place in the service. We saw that people were always respected by staff and treated with kindness. We saw staff communicating with people well and at times use their skills positively to reassure people who used the service.

People were encouraged to enhance their wellbeing to take part in occasional activities that were valued. Staff spent their time positively engaging with people as a group and on a one to one basis. People were supported to go out on organised weekly outings. Throughout the day we saw that people who used the service, relatives and staff were comfortable and had a positive rapport with the manager and also with each other.

People’s care plans were written in plain English and in a person centred way and they also included a one page profile that gave information that included personal history and described individuals preferences and support needs. These were regularly reviewed and some had included family members in the process.

Care plans contained personalised risk assessments. These identified risks and described the measures and interventions to be taken to ensure people were protected from the risk of harm. The care plans showed that people’s health was monitored and referrals were made to other health care professionals where necessary, for example: their GP, dentist or optician.

Staff training records, showed staff were supported and able to maintain and develop their skills through training and development opportunities that were accessible at the service. The staff confirmed they attended a range of valuable learning opportunities.

Staff had supervisions and appraisals with the manager, where they had the opportunity to discuss their care practice and identify further training needs.

Records showed us there were robust recruitment processes in place.

We observed how the service administered medicines and spoke with senior staff who administered medicines and we found that the process was safe.

People were encouraged to eat and drink sufficient amounts to meet their needs. They were offered a varied selection of drinks and snacks. The daily menu was reflective of people’s likes and dislikes and offered varied choices and it was not an issue if people wanted something different.

A complaints and compliments procedure was in place. This provided information on the action to take if someone wished to make a complaint and what they should expect to happen next. The compliments we looked at were complimentary to the care staff, management and the service as a whole.

People also had their rights respected and access to advocacy services if needed.

We found an effective quality assurance survey took pl

We inspected SeaView Care Home on 21 May 2015. This was unannounced which meant that the staff and registered provider did not know that we would be visiting.

SeaView Care Home provides care and accommodation to a maximum number of 25 older people and / or older people living with a dementia. Accommodation is provided over three floors. Communal lounge and dining facilities are available. There is an enclosed small patio area for people to use.

The service has 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.

There were systems and processes in place to protect people from the risk of harm. The care staff understood the procedures they needed to follow to ensure that people were safe. They were able to describe the different ways that people might experience abuse and the right action to take if they were concerned that abuse had taken place.

Appropriate checks of the building and maintenance systems were undertaken to ensure health and safety.

Staff told us that they felt supported. There was a regular programme of staff supervision in place. Records of supervision were detailed and showed that the registered manager had worked with staff to identify their personal and professional development goals. Staff had been trained and had the skills and knowledge to provide support to the people they cared for.

We asked people if they thought there were enough staff on duty to meet their needs. We received mixed comments in respect of this. Some people thought that there was enough staff but some people did not. We pointed this out to the registered manager who said that they would review staffing levels.

The registered manager and staff that we spoke with had an understanding of the MCA principles and their responsibilities in accordance with the MCA and how to make ‘best interest’ decisions. We saw that appropriate documentation was in place for those people who lacked capacity to make best interest decisions in relation to their care. We saw that a multidisciplinary team and their relatives were involved in making such a decision and that this was clearly recorded within the person’s care plan.

We looked at the arrangements that were in place to ensure that staff were recruited safely and people were protected from unsuitable staff. We found that safe recruitment and selection procedures were in place and appropriate checks had been undertaken before staff began work. This included obtaining references from previous employers to show staff employed were safe to work with vulnerable people.

Appropriate systems were in place for the management of medicines so that people received their medicines safely. We saw that medicines had been given as prescribed..

There were positive interactions between people and staff. We saw that people were supported by staff who respected their privacy and dignity. Staff were attentive, showed compassion, were encouraging and caring.

People told us they were provided with a choice of healthy food and drinks which helped to ensure that their nutritional needs were met.

People visited their doctor, dentist and optician. Staff told us how they supported and accompanied people on hospital appointments to manage their physical and mental health needs. Staff at the service had good links with the district nursing service. This meant that people who used the service were supported to obtain the appropriate health and social care that they needed.

Assessments were undertaken to identify people’s health and support needs. We looked at the arrangements that were in place to manage risk so that people were protected and their freedom supported and respected. The registered manager and staff that we spoke with during the inspection were able to describe how they kept people safe; however risk assessments were too generic and did not contain individual measures to reduce / prevent the highlighted risk.

People’s independence was encouraged and there was a plentiful supply of activities. Staff encouraged and supported people on outings.

The provider had a system in place for responding to people’s concerns and complaints. People and relatives that we spoke with during the inspection told us they knew how to complain and felt confident that staff would respond and take action to support them.

There were effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. Staff told us that the service had an open, inclusive and positive culture.