Skip to main content
Placeholder image for Seaford Family Care
Seaford Family CareEast Sussex

Illustrative image. Photographs of this home have not yet been added.

Rated:Requires ImprovementResidential

Seaford Family Care

40-42 Claremont Road, Seaford, East Sussex, BN25 2BD
07368923042
Care Type

Residential Care

Assessment date

13 November 2025

Provider

HomesCare Ltd

Beds

19 beds

About Seaford Family Care

Seaford Family Care, in East Sussex, provides accommodation and personal care for up to 19 older people, including those living with dementia. The CQC rated the home Requires Improvement overall, having found breaches relating to safe care, staffing and governance. Environmental and fire risks were not always managed, medicines were not always safe, staff recruitment and training had gaps, and care plans were out of date.

Inspectors found people and relatives felt the home was safe, homely and staff were kind, though meal quality drew mixed feedback and activities were limited. Staff felt unsupported by management, communication with some professionals was poor, and the complaints process was unclear to some relatives. Day to day, people's needs were responded to promptly and their independence encouraged.

Source: CQC assessment, 10 February 2026

Specialist Care

DementiaOlder people

Fees and availability

We have not verified a current weekly fee for this home. Ask for a written quote based on the room and care needed, including any extra charges.

Check current vacancies, the admission assessment and visiting arrangements directly with the home.

Care and inspection details

Checked against the CQC register on 21 September 2026. This is a check of published information, not a visit to the home.

Registered service
Care home service without nursing
Registered capacity
19 places — this is not a vacancy count
Registration checked
Registered · BN25 2BD

Registered care categories

Caring for adults over 65 yrs; Dementia.

These describe the registration. The home must assess whether it can meet the individual person's needs and whether a place is available.

CQC ratings in more detail

Overall rating shown by CQC: Requires Improvement.

Assessment published 10 February 2026. Assessment date recorded: 13 November 2025.

Read CQC's assessment overview

The following is CQC's published account of its assessment, published 10 February 2026. References to “we” mean CQC. It describes findings at that time.

Assessment date: 27 November to the 24 December 2025. Site visit was undertaken on 27 November and 1 December 2025. This was the first full assessment of this newly registered service. The service registered with the Care Quality Commission on 4 October 2023.Homescare Seaford is a residential care home providing accommodation for up to 19 older people and those living with dementia. At the time of our assessment there were 17 people living at the home. The registered manager was in breach of three legal regulations in relation to safe care and treatment, staffing and governance. People’s safety was not managed effectively. Environmental and fire risks had not always been identified and mitigated. Medicines were not always safely managed.Staff had not always been recruited safely. There were gaps across all training records and some staff had not had a supervision meeting for over 9 months. The governance, management structure and auditing process were not robust enough to identify and then learn from when things went wrong. The review and updating of care plans and risk assessments had not been completed for over 12 months. The provider had not put in place an effective process to get feedback from staff.Pre-assessments were carried out before people moved to the service but there were inconsistencies regarding people’s and relatives involvement in these processes. Care plans lacked detail about people’s previous histories and preferred routines. The registered manager did not always follow up on the advice and support offered by other professionals. People’s hydration and nutrition needs were met but feedback about meal quality was poor. People’s health was monitored using recognised tools but not all staff understood these processes. These were areas that required improvement. Mental capacity assessments were in place and staff understood the importance of gaining consent form people.Staff wellbeing and support was not managed well. Staff told us they felt unsupported and were not able to approach the registered manager for advice. Although people living at the home were treated with kindness and respect, the relationship between the registered manager and some professionals was poor with communication highlighted as an issue. These are areas that required improvement. Day to day people were treated well and their independence was promoted. People’s immediate needs were responded to in a timely way.Although people’s care and support were person centred this was not reflected in care plans which were, in most cases, out of date and did not reflect people’s current needs. Feedback was mixed from relatives relating to the complaints process with some saying they would not know how to make a complaint. There were few activities for people and no activities co-ordinator. There were no records kept of discussions about advanced decisions about future care arrangements. These were all areas that required improvement. Relatives told us that regular communications with the home were good and that they were informed of incidents or updates relating to their loved ones.

Safe
Requires Improvement
Effective
Requires Improvement
Caring
Requires Improvement
Responsive
Requires Improvement
Well-led
Requires Improvement

Questions prompted by these ratings

  • Safe: What changes have been made to medicines, staffing and safeguarding since this rating?
  • Effective: How are staff training, nutrition and health outcomes checked now?
  • Caring: How do staff protect privacy, dignity and each person’s choices?
  • Responsive: How are care plans, activities and complaints adapted to each resident?
  • Well-led: What has changed in management, checks and oversight since this rating?

These are questions for your visit, not a claim about conditions today.

Read Seaford Family Care's CQC record and reports.

Contains Care Quality Commission information under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Ratings and registration details can change after the date checked.

5 Questions to Ask on Your Visit

When visiting Seaford Family Care, consider asking...

  1. 1.What specific dementia training do staff receive and how recently?
  2. 2.How do you support a resident who becomes distressed or confused?
  3. 3.How does the home keep a record of a resident's life history and personal preferences?
  4. 4.How do you involve families as dementia progresses and communication becomes harder?
  5. 5.What happens when a resident's dementia reaches an advanced stage?

5 Things to Look For on Your Visit

When you visit Seaford Family Care, look out for...

  1. 1.Is the environment calm, uncluttered and easy to navigate?
  2. 2.Do staff speak to residents with patience and dignity, even if they repeat themselves?
  3. 3.Are there memory cues around the home -- photos, familiar objects, clear signage?
  4. 4.Do residents seem settled and safe, or agitated and unsupervised?
  5. 5.Is there meaningful activity happening, or are residents just sitting quietly with nothing to do?

Could the NHS fund Seaford Family Care's fees?

The average nursing home costs £1,535 per week. That's £79,820 a year. NHS Continuing Healthcare could cover all of it. No means test, no contribution from you.

Location

40-42 Claremont Road, Seaford, East Sussex, BN25 2BD

CQC Logo

Seaford Family Care

CQC overall rating

Requires Improvement

Assessment date: 13 November 2025

View full inspection report
New

Have a question about this care home?

Ask in our Community Forum and get a real answer from someone who's been through it.

Share what's on your mind
07368923042