Archived: Seaside Cottage

Seaside cottage is registered with the Care Quality Commission to provide treatment of disease disorder and injury and personal care. The service is also registered with Ofsted as a children’s home and had a full inspection in October 2015 and was rated outstanding.

The service provides residential care to four young people. The primarily aim of the service is to provide respite care for children with complex physical disabilities who have associated health conditions. The average length of stay was between eight to ten days, although one young person lived at the service on a permanent basis. The manager told us that the service regularly supported between 15 to 20 children. A domiciliary care service also operated from the location to assist the transition for children being discharged from hospital with complex needs and we looked at this as part of the inspection. At the time of our inspection two children were being supported by the domiciliary care agency.

There was a registered manager in post on the day of our 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.

Relatives and professionals spoke very positively about the service and the quality of care that was provided and this contributed to the rating of outstanding in caring. People told us that the service went the extra mile to support families and accommodate the young people and their needs. The staff worked closely with families to ensure a smooth transition and to promote the young people’s wellbeing. We observed that there was a very friendly, warm atmosphere in the service and staff interacted with the young people in a compassionate and supportive way. Independence was promoted and young people were enabled to be as independent as they could be. There was a culture of respect within the service and treating the young people as individuals.

Staff knew the young people and had good relationships with them. Communication was given a high priority and there was a range of communication systems in use, with young people supported to make their views known and have choices. The focus was on enabling them to lead a full life, enjoy new experiences and have fun during their stay at the service.

Staff had a good awareness of safeguarding and there were sufficient numbers of trained staff available to meet the needs of the young people. The management of the home were committed to providing a good service and invested in training and developing the skills and knowledge of staff. Young people had complex needs and advice was sought appropriately from health care professionals. There were clear processes in place for assessment and review to ensure that changes in young people’s health and wellbeing were identified. The care was underpinned by detailed care plans and risk assessments which ensured that care was delivered in a consistent way and young people preferences were met.

The providers and manager were accessible and visible. They set high standards and were keen to innovate and develop the service. Morale was high and staff told us that they were well supported and enjoyed their role. There were clear systems in place to reflect on practice and drive improvement.

We found that people's needs were fully assessed and care plans were put in place to ensure people's needs were fully met. We found that the provider worked effectively in communicating with external professionals who were involved in the children's and young people's care.

Where young people did not have the capacity to consent, the provider acted in accordance with legal requirements. Before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes.

We found that children and young people were safeguarded from harm because effective safeguarding and whistle blowing procedures were in place.

We saw there were effective systems in place to review and monitor the service provided and that people who used the service, parents, carers and stakeholders were all consulted about their views and opinions on a regular basis.

We found that staff were trained and supported appropriately to carry out their role effectively and safely.

During our inspection we spoke with one carer and one young person who was receiving respite care. The young person was obviously enjoying the interaction and attention from staff. The carer was extremely complimentary about the care and support provided at the home. They told us that the communication with them, with the school and with the multidisciplinary team was 'excellent' and they felt confident that any medical needs would be addressed promptly and appropriately.