Archived: Eastbourne Care Home

Updated 30 September 2016

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our

regulatory functions. We undertook this focused inspection to check that the registered provider had

followed their action plan and had made improvements at the service.

This focused inspection took place on 16 August 2016 and was unannounced. This meant the staff and provider did not know we would be visiting. Two adult Social Care inspectors took part in this inspection.

During our inspection we spoke with the temporary manager, deputy manager, four people who used the service, two relatives, two care staff, activities co-ordinator and domestic staff.

As part of our inspection we looked at records including; personal care plans records of three people who used the service, staff rotas, staffing policies, falls monitoring information and staff communication records.

Updated 30 September 2016

We carried out this unannounced inspection on the 10th and 16th December 2014.

We last inspected this service on the 18th August 2014 and found they were in breach of one or more of the regulations associated with the Care Homes Act 2008. This was due to care records being confusing and lacking attention to detail, we found that information was duplicated, incorrectly dated and did not provide staff with clear, accessible information about people's care needs. We found induction training to be poor, staff were not clear about their roles and responsibilities and due to staff leaving, they were short staffed. Assessing and Monitoring the quality of the service we found the then peripatetic manager had no effective quality assurances or processes in place.

Following our last inspection the provider sent us an action plan outlining their plans to improve. We carried out this inspection to check that improvements had been made and found that action had been taken to ensure Eastbourne Care Home complied with the regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008

Eastbourne Care Home is a 42 place care service. It provides 24 nursing places on the first floor and 2 nursing places on the ground floor. It has a separate unit on the ground floor with 15 intermediate places that are funded by the Clinical Commissioning Group. These places are for people who need a short rehabilitation service to recover following illness or injury. The service is on a residential street a short distance from Darlington town centre.

At the time of our inspection Eastbourne Care Home had a peripatetic manager in place. A peripatetic manager works with the operations team to manage a service without a permanent manager. The peripatetic manager at Eastbourne Care home was in the process of transferring their current registration to become the 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.

People living at the service were receiving good care and support that was tailored to meet their individual needs. Staff ensured they were kept safe from abuse and avoidable harm. People we spoke with were positive about the service they received. People told us they felt safe and included in decisions about their care.

We observed interactions between staff and people living in the home and staff were kind and respectful to people when they were supporting them. Staff were aware of the values of the service and knew how to respect people’s privacy and dignity.

Medicines were properly managed and stored safely.

The registered manager and staff had been trained and had a good knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The peripatetic manager understood when an application should be made, and how to submit one. This meant people were safeguarded and their human rights respected.

The service now had an activity coordinator. A range of activities were provided both in-house and in the community. We saw people were involved and consulted about all aspects of the service including what improvements they would like to see and suggestions for activities. We saw evidence that people were encouraged to maintain contact with friends and family.

The culture within the service was person centred and open. From listening to people’s views we established the leadership within the service was now more consistent and the peripatetic manager was readily accessible for staff and people who used the service. Relatives we spoke with still felt they did not know the peripatetic manager.

We found the peripatetic manager took steps to ensure the service learnt from mistakes, incidents and complaints.

We discussed concerns raised from people who used the service about lack of showers, with the regional operations manager and the peripatetic manager. People said they were only showered once a week. Both managers said they would rectify this immediately.

Suitable arrangements were in place and people were provided with a choice of healthy food and drinks ensuring their nutritional needs were met.

People’s physical health was monitored as required. This included the monitoring of people’s health conditions and symptoms so appropriate referrals to health professionals could be made.

People’s needs were assessed and care and support was planned and delivered in line with their individual care needs. We recognised care plans had improved since out last inspection, although there was still a lot of work to make them more person centred.

Staff received training to enable them to perform their roles and the service looked at ways to increase knowledge to ensure people’s individual needs were met. Staff had regular supervisions and appraisals to monitor their performance and told us they felt supported by the management team.