The inspection took place on 5 January 2017 and was unannounced. We last inspected the service on 2 December 2013, and found the service was compliant with the standards inspected.

Sense - 5 Seafield Road is a care home registered to provide personal care for up to six deafblind adults. The provider is Sense, a national charity organisation for children and adults who are deafblind. Sense use the term 'deafblind' to cover a wide range of people, some of whom may not be totally deaf or blind. Some people who lived there had profound and complex learning disabilities. Several people had autism, physical disabilities and were unable to verbally communicate with us.

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.

Personalised risk assessments balanced risks with minimising restrictions to people's freedom. Equipment was regularly serviced and tested as were gas, electrical and fire equipment. The service had enough staff to support people's care flexibly around their wishes and preferences.

People received their medicines safely and on time from staff who were trained and assessed to manage medicines safely. Accidents and incidents were reported and included measures to continually improve practice and reduce the risks of recurrence. Staff understood the signs of abuse and knew how to report concerns, including to external agencies. They completed safeguarding training and had regular updates.

People were relaxed and comfortable with staff who were attuned to their needs. Staff treated people with dignity and respected their privacy, they were discreet when supporting people with personal care. Staff developed positive, kind, and compassionate relationships with people.

People's care was individualised. Staff could recognise how a person was feeling from their non-verbal cues such as body language, gestures and vocal sounds and they responded appropriately. There was a relaxed, calm and happy atmosphere at the home with lots of smiles, good humour, fun and gestures of affection. Staff spoke with pride about the people they cared for and celebrated their achievements.

Each person had a comprehensive assessment of their health needs and care plans had detailed instructions for staff about how to meet those needs. Staff worked closely with local healthcare professionals such as the GP, local learning disability team and specialist professionals to improve people's health. Health professionals said staff were proactive, sought their advice and implemented it. People were supported to improve their health through good nutrition and to improve and retain their mobility through a regular exercise programme. People enjoyed their meals and ate well and lunchtime was a happy, sociable occasion.

People's rights and choices were promoted and respected. Staff understood the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and involved person, family members and other professionals in 'best interest' decision making.

People appeared happy and content in their surroundings. Staff had the relevant knowledge and skills needed to support people and had ongoing professional development opportunities.

People pursued a range of hobbies, activities and individual interests. For example, reading and being read to, cooking, shopping, arts and crafts, and swimming. People were well known in their local community where they visited local cafes, pubs, shops and restaurants. The service had a wheelchair accessible minibus and people enjoyed trips to the cinema, beach and individual holidays.

People received a good standard of care because staff were led by an experienced registered manager and deputy

We met the six people who lived at the home, most of who had lived there several years. We spoke with one person, with staff help, to get their views of the service. As others were less able to give us their views because of their needs, we observed how people spent their day. This included support they received from staff and how they managed in the environment provided. We looked in more detail at the care two people received through looking at their care records.

We also spoke with four care workers, the registered manager and a community based health professional who supported people who lived at the home.

We found that care was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. For example, they were protected from the risks of inadequate nutrition and dehydration, including those who needed support to eat and drink safely. There were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people’s needs. A health professional commented "A lovely home. Very person-centred. Very respectful staff. They know their clients and work well with them."

There was an effective complaints system. Comments and complaints people made or communicated through their behaviour were responded to appropriately.

People who used the service, staff and visitors were protected against the risks of unsafe or unsuitable premises. Maintenance and safety checks were carried out, with adaptations made to meet people's sensory and other needs.

We spent a day at the service and met the six people who lived there. We looked in detail at the care given to two people. We were unable to communicate well with people we met so we observed their interactions with staff. This helped us to understand how people spent their time, the type of support they got and whether they had positive experiences. We spoke with five care workers and the registered manager about how the home met people’s needs.

People experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights. Care was person centred; care workers treated each person with dignity and respect and were knowledgeable about their needs. Each person who lived at the home was supported to lead an active and fulfilling life, and to be as independent as possible. When we accompanied one person into town, we saw they were very much part of the local community and were greeted wherever they went. We saw people were encouraged to help with household tasks such as cooking, shopping and to clean and tidy their rooms.

People were supported to have their medicines safely and were protected from the risk of infections because the home was clean and good infection control measures were in place. Records seen showed detailed care plans and risk assessments were in place to meet people’s needs which were reviewed and updated regularly as needed.

We found that 5 Seafield Road were compliant with the six outcomes we inspected.

We (the Care Quality Commission) carried out an unannounced inspection on 28 February 2012 to 5 Seafield Road, Seaton. We spent a day at the service and met the six people who lived there and spoke to five care workers and the registered manager. We looked in detail at the care given to two people. Some of the people we met were unable to communicate with us so to help us to understand the experiences people have we used our Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI) tool. This tool allowed us to spend time watching what is going on in a service and helped us to record how people spend their time, the type of support they get and whether they have positive experiences.

We spoke to staff and the registered manager about how the home met people’s needs. We asked two visiting health professionals who visited the home regularly about their experiences of working with the home who gave positive feedback about the caring attitudes of staff.

We found that care workers treated people with dignity and respect and were knowledgeable about people’s care needs. The records seen showed detailed care plans and risk assessments were in place to meet people’s needs which were reviewed and updated regularly as needed.

We observed staff interactions with people and saw that people’s views were listened to and respected and people were supported to be as independent as possible. We heard about the wide variety of activities that were available to people who lived at the home. These included swimming, shopping, walking, meals out and trips to various amusement parks. Everyone was supported to go on holiday and keep in touch with friends and family members.

Care workers we spoke to were knowledgeable about safeguarding vulnerable adults from abuse and appropriate policies and systems were in place to support this.

5 Seafield Road showed us a variety of methods through which they monitored the quality of care provided. Detailed risks assessments and care plans were in place to minimise the risks to people and keep them safe. The home undertook regular checks of health and safety systems, medicines management and fire checks. The home also undertook monthly meetings with key workers and individuals as appropriate to their abilities to involve them in planning their care for the forthcoming month. This including planning activities, reviewing health and care needs and making any changes required. The service demonstrated how they improved the service as a result of feedback from people, and in response to incidents.

We found that 5 Seafield Road were compliant with all five outcomes we inspected.