You are here

Alma Lodge Care Home Requires improvement

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 3 July 2019

About the service:

• Alma Lodge care home is a residential care home in the Meads area of Eastbourne. The home provides accommodation for up to 14 older people who may have some physical health needs but do not require nursing care. Some people are living with dementia. At the time of the inspection there were seven people living at the home.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at

People’s experience of using this service:

• Medicines were not always given at the prescribed time. Some medicines were time specific and these were not always given at the correct time although staff were seen to record the time as if they had been. One person in receipt of time specific medicines had experienced several falls and any potential link between these falls and medicines had not been investigated by the registered manager. There were no protocols in place for medicines required now and again like pain relief. Staff were not consistently recruited safely.

• Mental capacity assessments had been completed for everyone despite only a few people lacking capacity . People were not supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff did not support supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service did not support supported this practice.

• The assessments were not decision specific. The registered managed was not aware that people with capacity did not require an assessment or that assessments had to be decision specific.

• The provider had not notified CQC of some deaths and incidents as required.

• Care plans were disorganised, and it was not always easy to find important information and sometimes used language that was disrespectful. Some care plans lacked specific detail about important health or care needs that people had.

• Audits that were carried out contained some inconsistencies for example in relation to sensor mat use.

• No minutes had been recorded from meetings with people, staff or relatives so there was nothing to share with those who could not attend and no record of any actions. No questionnaires had been sent out to people and relatives to enable them to give their views and opinions.

• People told us they felt safe. Staff had knowledge of individual people and they were aware of what to do should a safeguarding situation arise. Staffing levels were sufficient to provide a good level of care and support for all people.

• There were regular health and safety checks of the environment and people had person centred evacuation plans. Staff had the skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs in most areas. Staff received appropriate training and support to enable them to look after people. They received supervision to support them in their roles.

• People and their relatives thought that staff were caring, and that people were well cared for. Staff interactions were observed throughout the inspection and it was clear that all were very attentive and understanding of people’s needs. People’s dignity and privacy was promoted. People were asked discreetly if they needed help with personal care. Staff would knock before entering people’s rooms.

• Staff responded well to people’s needs. Person centred care was evident and people were provided with choices throughout each day. There was an activity programme and the feedback from people was positive. Staff responded to people in a way that suited their needs. People’s communication needs were met by talking to them in a way they understood and by taking time with people.

• The registered manager was very well thought of by staff, people and relatives. It was clear that they knew all the people well and that they spent time helping with day to day care and support when needed. Links with the local community had been established.

Rating at last inspection:

• At the last inspection the service was rated Requires Improvement (March 2018). This inspection

Inspection areas


Requires improvement

Updated 3 July 2019

The service was not always safe

Details are in our Safe findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 3 July 2019

The service was not always effective

Details are in our Effective findings below.



Updated 3 July 2019

The service was caring

Details are in our Caring findings below.



Updated 3 July 2019

The service was responsive

Details are in our Responsive findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 3 July 2019

The service was not always well-led

Details are in our Well-led findings below