Eastbourne House

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to outstanding. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently better than expected compared to similar services. People’s feedback described it as exceptional and distinctive.

This service scored 88 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People’s needs were assessed before they moved into the home, and staff gathered clear information that informed individualised care plans. Daily monitoring records, including food and fluid charts and repositioning schedules, were kept up to date and used to track changes in people’s wellbeing. Staff understood people’s communication needs and used tools such as picture menus, accessible information formats and tailored approaches to help people express their wishes. Relatives told us they felt staff understood people well and acted promptly when needs changed. Observations during the visit showed staff responding calmly and helpfully when people required reassurance or support.

The provider had a strong focus on ensuring best practice and national guidance was embedded in approaches to people’s various individual care needs. They had ensured that all care staff understood the importance of working together to embed evidenced based quality interventions; not only with peers but with various visiting health professionals.

The provider had been innovative in their approach to supporting people at risk of malnutrition and set up a nutritional café. The registered manager held regular gatherings with people to discuss food, have healthy food related quizzes and sample a range of high calorie and healthy items, including milk shakes and fruit. The aim being to encourage additional food intake in a supportive environment. This was very well attended and the outcomes for people’s health clearly demonstrated and documented.

The provider embedded the International Dysphagia Diet Standardisation Initiative (IDDSI) standards, into daily practice. Kitchen and care staff worked together to ensure people received meals that met their dietary needs precisely, including pureed options, fluid modifications, fortified meals and cultural or personal preferences.

People’s records demonstrated timely referrals to professionals such as Speech and Language Therapists (SALT), dietitians and specialist teams, with clear adjustments following clinical advice. People told us the support they received “could not be better,” and relatives described the service as “exceptional.” One relative said, “There is always conversations with the chef about food and choices. The kitchen staff are excellent, cannot fault them. They have themed meals, like Italian or Chinese. They are certainly very well looked after in terms of food.”

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Staff collaborated effectively with community professionals including GPs, district nurses, mental health teams and the frailty nurse. Weekly ward rounds supported early identification of health concerns. Records showed clear communication with healthcare partners, and visiting professionals reported positive working relationships. A relative told us, “The communication with me is very good. I cannot fault them.” Observations showed care staff sharing information well between shifts and maintaining accurate handover notes. These approaches supported smooth transitions and reliable continuity of care.

The provider always supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to fully maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

There was a strong, preventative approach embedded across the service, rooted in staff truly knowing people as individuals and using that understanding to shape daily life and health support. People’s histories, strengths, preferences and aspirations were actively used to personalise routines and meaningful activity, so support went beyond tasks and focused on what mattered to each person. Care planning reflected individual likes and dislikes and incorporated family insight, helping ensure people remained visible as individuals, not defined by age or diagnosis. Staff then translated this knowledge into daily practice, supporting people to make choices that sustained independence and wellbeing, including taking part in activities, maintaining mobility and healthy routines, and being encouraged to do what they could for themselves.

The service demonstrated how this approach ‘brought people into the light’ through personalised opportunities that reflected their identity and life story. For example, staff enabled one person, who was described as a thrill seeker, to pursue a meaningful challenge of a five mile walk which aligned with their interests and personal motivation. This was done in a sensitive and well managed way which focused on the person’s wellbeing.

Relatives described high levels of confidence in the service, praising the quality of care and experience, one describing it as the best home they had been in.

This was underpinned by strong oversight of people’s changing needs. Risks were proactively managed through robust care planning, effective monitoring and timely escalation, with strong multidisciplinary working securing early intervention and continuity of care.

The provider monitored all people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they fully met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

All staff, regardless of role, demonstrated a shared and proactive commitment to continuously improving outcomes for people. They used careful observation, reflective practice, collaboration and shared learning to identify early changes in wellbeing and respond creatively, ensuring people received the right support at the right time. This culture meant that everyone felt confident to act. For example, one member of non‑care staff recognised subtle changes in a person’s mood, anxiety and appetite. Through building a trusting and enquiring relationship, they worked alongside care staff to explore what mattered to the person and actively supported them to re‑engage with activities and the wider local community. As a result, the person experienced improved confidence, emotional wellbeing and social connection, alongside a positive impact on their nutritional intake and overall quality of life.

The registered manager consistently showcased people’s individual stories, clearly evidencing how staff identified early signs of decline, engaged with people and those important to them, and worked together to give opportunities to improve outcomes. These narratives did not just record actions taken, but captured the difference this approach made to people’s lives, reinforcing a service‑wide focus on meaningful, person‑centred impact.

Staff were exceptionally creative and compassionate when supporting people through significant life events. Following a major bereavement, staff recognised a person’s grief and subsequent decline and focused on what the individual felt would help them reconnect with their identity, interests and sense of purpose. This led to personalised support that enabled the person to take part in a fundraising activity in their loved one’s honour, promoting inclusion, companionship and community engagement. The outcome was a renewed sense of purpose and emotional resilience, demonstrating a genuinely responsive and outstanding approach to care.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Staff understood and applied the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) correctly. Capacity assessments were completed where necessary, and best‑interest decisions were clearly recorded. Observations showed staff gaining consent before providing support and explaining tasks in a calm and respectful way. The Deprivation of Liberties register was up to date with timely applications and clear links to care planning. Training records showed staff were up to date with MCA training, and relatives told us staff always involved them in decisions and explained changes clearly.