Background to this inspection
Updated
27 January 2022
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.
As part of CQC’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic we are looking at how services manage infection control and visiting arrangements. This was a targeted inspection looking at the infection prevention and control measures the provider had in place. We also asked the provider about any staffing pressures the service was experiencing and whether this was having an impact on the service.
This inspection took place on 11th January 2022 and was announced. We gave the service one day notice of the inspection.
Updated
27 January 2022
This inspection took place on 21 and 26 June 2018. The first day of the inspection was unannounced.
Eastbourne House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.
Eastbourne House accommodates 72 people with personal care needs across three floors in one purpose built building. Some of the people were living with dementia. On the day of our inspection there were 72 people using the service.
This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.
The service had a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with CQC to manage the service. Like 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.
We last inspected the service in September 2015 and rated the service as ‘Good’. At this inspection we found the service remained ‘Good’.
People told us they felt safe Eastbourne House. There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to keep people safe. There was an effective recruitment and selection procedure in place and relevant vetting checks were carried out. Staff were suitably trained and received regular supervisions and appraisals.
Accidents and incidents were appropriately recorded and risk assessments were in place. Safeguarding procedures had been correctly followed and staff had been trained in safeguarding vulnerable adults.
The home was clean, spacious and suitable for the people who used the service. Health and safety checks were carried out to ensure people lived in a safe environment.
Appropriate arrangements were in place for the safe administration and storage of medicines.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives, and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People were supported with their dietary needs and care records contained evidence of visits to and from external health care specialists.
People who used the service and family members were complimentary about the standard of care at Eastbourne House. Staff treated people with dignity and respect and helped to maintain people’s independence by encouraging them to care for themselves where possible.
Care records showed that people’s needs were assessed before they started using the service and support plans were written in a person-centred way. Person-centred means ensuring the person is at the centre of any care or support plans and their individual wishes, needs and choices are taken into account.
People were protected from social isolation. Person-centred activities were arranged and people were supported to take part in group events and excursions.
The provider had an effective complaints procedure in place, and people who used the service and family members were aware of how to make a complaint.
The provider had an effective quality assurance process in place. People who used the service, family members and staff were regularly consulted about the quality of the service via meetings and surveys.