Seton Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

We reviewed 3 quality statements under this key question: Assessing needs; How staff, teams and services work together and Consent to care and treatment. We found that people were involved in their care and their consent to receive care was sought by staff and the management team. However, where people could not consent to care, the appropriate legislative processes had not always been followed. People had their needs assessed before care commenced and were involved in how their care would be delivered. People told us care was consistent and they were asked for their consent before care began or changes were made to their care.

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.

People’s feedback was positive, people told us, “I am included in discussions about my care, we also have a meeting to discuss everything.”

The manager told us, “People using this service have their own community and will transfer from an independent living service to Seton Care Home or our other care home services depending on their location when they require more care and support.” A staff member told us, “We are all the same congregation; I look after the people, so they have the best possible care. Everything is for the welfare of the people.”

The manager and Reverend Mother carried out assessments of people’s care and support needs prior to their admission at Seton care home. People’s care plans were developed with input from people using the service, the Reverend Mother who acted as people’s next of kin and their families. People’s care plans contained detailed information about their care and support requirements.

We did not look at Delivering evidence-based care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

People we spoke to told us how effectively the manager and staffing team liaised with other health care services to ensure they received good quality care and prompt treatment. A person told us, “We only have to tell a member of staff and they will get us access to a GP, or anyone we need.”

Staff understood the importance of working together with other services to improve outcomes for people. One member of staff told us, “We work with another service downstairs and people attend a weekly physiotherapy session which they enjoy, they also have a daily armchair exercise session and I have seen an increased movement in people, we are now on the next level.”

We requested information from partners however, we received no information in response to our request.

We saw in daily care notes and a person’s care plan staff involvement with other professionals. Visits from professionals were recorded with a summary of the action taken and any changes to the monitoring or care delivery required by staff. The manager also kept a monthly overview for each person’ logging professional visits and any treatment received. Records showed people were attending regular physiotherapy sessions to improve/maintain their physical health.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Monitoring and improving outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

People told us they received a choice about their care and treatment. Comments included, “Our day is quite structured; however, we do have choice and are free to choose so there is no pressure to go.” And “We are involved in everything; our views are sought about all aspects of our lives.”

Staff were aware of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and were able to describe how they apply this in their day-to-day practice. Comments included, “I try to respect what people say or want, if people chose something I would respect their decision.” And “I put up on board what is going on. In the morning during exercise, I tell people what is on, and they will join in if they wish to, it is their choice.”

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The MCA requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA. In care homes, and some hospitals, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We found the service had not always completed the relevant applications for people and sought legal authorisations to deprive a person of their liberty where required. The manager responded immediately after the assessment and told us they were reviewing people’s MCA’s and where needed would be submitting DoLS applications for people to the relevant authorities for review as a matter of priority.