Eastbourne House

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 75 (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 had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

Monthly accident and incident audits were completed with analysis and no significant issues identified. Complaints were managed transparently, with outcomes shared and used to improve practice. People, relatives and staff told us they felt able to raise concerns and that managers responded constructively.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

Staff completed pre‑admission assessments and gathered detailed information before people moved into the service. This supported continuity of care and ensured the home could meet people’s needs safely. Staff worked with external professionals, including frailty nurses, district nurses and GPs, to support safe transitions and ongoing monitoring. Observations confirmed staff understood people’s assessed risks and supported them appropriately during changes in need.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that.

Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while safeguarding them from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. Safeguarding concerns were shared promptly and appropriately. Money handling processes were safe, transparent and well audited. Relatives consistently told us they felt people were safe living at Eastbourne House. One relative said, “I have complete peace of mind because I know my loved one is safe and well cared for.”

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Care plans included clear guidance on managing falls, mobility, nutrition, skin integrity and emotional wellbeing. Equipment such as sensor mats, crash mats and specialist mattresses were used appropriately. Staff monitored mattress settings and updated care plans when needed. We saw consistent, factual incident reporting, enabling learning and timely review. People were supported safely while maintaining independence wherever possible.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

Fire safety was robust, with regular personal emergency evacuation plan (PEEPs) reviews, updated fire grab‑bag checks and prompt action taken when information needed correcting. We noted that people who were in hospital were not marked as absent on the PEEPs documentation. This was addressed immediately. Independent fire risk assessments were completed and actions addressed. The home was clean, well maintained and free from hazards.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

Dependency tools were used to plan staffing, with most shifts staffed above minimum requirement. Staff received regular supervision and annual appraisals, which were well tracked. Recruitment processes were safe and included Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks, verified references and involvement of residents. New staff received structured induction from experienced “induction champions.” Staff told us workloads were generally manageable and they felt confident in their roles.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

The home was consistently clean, odour‑free and well maintained. Staff followed safe PPE practices and were observed using hand hygiene correctly during walk‑rounds. Two infection control champions supported ongoing monitoring and competency checks. Mandatory infection, prevention and control (IPC) training was completed by staff, and quarterly IPC audits were carried out. The Winter Protection Plan included up‑to‑date national guidance and outbreak procedures which staff followed.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

Medicine administration records were accurate, clear and person‑centred, and included administration preferences and allergy information. ‘As required’ medicine protocols were detailed and staff recorded effectiveness. Medicines rooms and fridge temperatures were monitored daily. Controlled drugs were stored and audited correctly. Staff escalated GP reviews when needed, and medicines incidents were investigated with learning shared. Reflective accounts of medicines errors were not always fully completed; however, the registered manager took our feedback on board to address this.