Seymour House-Northwood

“The assessment included an unannounced visit to the service on 17 June 2025.”

“ ”

“The assessment was planned in response to concerns identified through safeguarding alerts. At this assessment, we found the provider had responded appropriately to these and helped staff to learn from incidents to improve practice.”

“ ”

“The last rating of the service was good (published 21 October 2021). At this assessment, the rating has changed to requires improvement. We found breaches of legal regulations relating to person-centred care, safe care and treatment and good governance.”

“ ”

“Staff did not always provide personalised care which was required to meet people’s needs and preferences. Whilst the staff were polite, they did not always give people enough information to make choices. They often focussed on tasks without properly engaging with people. This meant some people did not experience good quality care.”

“ ”

“People told us they enjoyed the social and leisure activities. However, these were limited and most people spent time without anything to do.”

“ ”

“We witnessed a small number of incidents where staff did not follow best practice to ensure people were safe and risks to their wellbeing were mitigated. However, we found that in most cases, staff were careful to support people in a safe way.”

“Staff did not always assess people’s needs, or the risks associated with their care in a personalised way. This meant that there was not enough information about how to care for people and to keep them safe.”

“The provider’s systems for monitoring and improving quality, and mitigating risks had not always been operated effectively. This meant, managers and the provider had not identified all areas which needed to be improved to ensure people had a good quality of experience.”

“Staff felt well supported. There were robust systems for staff recruitment, training and support. Staff worked well with each other and managers.”

“The provider assessed, monitored and met people’s healthcare needs. They worked closely with external professionals to ensure people stayed healthy and well. People’s nutritional and hydration needs were monitored. Staff responded appropriately when people became unwell or there was a change in their conditions and needs. Care plans were regularly reviewed.”

“There were effective systems to help ensure the service ran smoothly, that adverse events were responded to and these were learnt from. Managers had a good knowledge of the service and liaised with people living there, relatives and staff to understand their feedback and experiences.”