Eastbourne House

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to outstanding. This meant service leadership was exceptional and distinctive. Leaders and the culture they created drove and improved high-quality, person-centred care.

This service scored 89 (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 very clear shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and an exceptional understanding of the challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

Open communication was central to the service’s culture. People and relatives were encouraged to share their experiences through meaningful feedback approaches, including the ‘In Your Eyes’ feedback system. This captured peoples lived experiences in their own words and was used to prompt discussion, learning and improvement within staff teams. Leaders ensured feedback was taken seriously, shared transparently and acted upon, so people could see the difference their views made.

Leaders demonstrated a strong, consistent commitment to high‑quality, person‑centred care through a clear and well‑embedded set of values that were visible in everyday practice. These values shaped how staff worked together, how decisions were made, and how people were supported. Staff at all levels understood the purpose of the service and could clearly explain how their role contributed to improving people’s experiences and outcomes.

A strong, reflective learning culture was embedded across the service. Leaders actively encouraged staff to reflect on practice using structured tools that explored what went well, what could be improved and what was learned. These reflections were shared openly within teams and used to reinforce positive behaviours, respond to challenges and continually improve practice, demonstrating a mature, values‑led culture focused on learning rather than blame.

Leadership visibility and approachability further strengthened trust. People, relatives and staff felt confident raising ideas, concerns and suggestions directly with managers, knowing they would be listened to and acted on. This openness helped build strong relationships and reinforced a shared commitment to doing the right thing when concerns were identified.

The service also demonstrated a forward‑thinking and responsive approach. Leaders routinely reviewed feedback, outcomes and service performance to anticipate challenges and refine priorities, ensuring standards were sustained even as people’s needs changed. This inclusive culture was reflected in the confidence expressed by external professionals. When asked if they would have a relative living at the home, all responded positively.

The provider had exceptionally inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They always did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

Leaders consistently modelled compassionate, inclusive and values‑led behaviours that set a clear standard for the whole service. Their actions reflected a deep commitment not only to people who used the service, but also to staff wellbeing, dignity and fairness. One person told us, “The manager is excellent. I can’t praise her enough.”

Leaders demonstrated exceptional compassion and integrity in how they supported staff through complex and sensitive circumstances. In one example shared by a senior leader, the registered manager recognised the importance of ensuring a staff member was treated with dignity, fairness and respect at a critical time. The manager took thoughtful, proactive steps to advocate on the individual’s behalf, working carefully through the appropriate processes so they could remain employed and access their full entitlements. This approach reflected a deep respect for the person and their contribution to the service, and a genuine commitment to doing what was right, even where this required additional time, care and advocacy.

The registered manager maintained a strong and visible presence within the home, allowing them to understand day‑to‑day practice and provide timely, supportive guidance. Decisions were informed by a strong understanding of people’s needs, staff pressures and operational priorities, ensuring responses were thoughtful, proportionate and rooted in best practice. This created stability, trust and confidence across the service.

The leadership team fostered an inclusive workplace where staff felt valued, recognised and able to contribute confidently. Staff contributions were regularly acknowledged through appreciation days, awards and informal recognition, reinforcing a sense of belonging and pride. These initiatives were not symbolic but reflected a genuine appreciation of staff as people and professionals.

Leaders drove continuous improvement by embedding learning, reflection and professional curiosity into everyday practice, using performance data, staff feedback and people’s experiences to strengthen care. Their transparent communication and clear expectations, combined with compassion and accountability, inspired staff and consistently sustained high standards across the service.

This leadership approach created a positive, inclusive and stable culture. Confidence in the service was echoed by external professionals. When asked if they would want a relative to live at the home, all responded positively, with one stating, “I absolutely would have a relative here, no doubt about that.”

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

Staff understood how to raise concerns and were aware of the procedures for reporting issues confidentially. Leaders promoted an open atmosphere where staff were encouraged to express ideas, highlight risks and share areas for improvement without fear of negative consequences. Team discussions, supervision sessions and routine meetings created regular opportunities for staff to reflect on practice and raise matters affecting the quality of care.

Leaders responded constructively when concerns were raised and provided feedback to staff on the actions taken. This reinforced confidence in the speaking‑up process and supported transparent, accountable working. The provider ensured staff had access to policies, contact details and guidance relating to whistleblowing and internal reporting.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

Staff from a range of backgrounds were represented across the service, and leaders promoted a culture where everyone felt respected and treated fairly. Policies and training supported staff to understand equality, human rights and inclusive practice, and records showed that mandatory equality and diversity training had been completed.

Leaders monitored staff wellbeing and performance in ways that reflected individual needs rather than a one‑size‑fits‑all approach. Staff were encouraged to discuss development goals and any barriers they experienced, and supervision arrangements allowed open discussion about workplace support.

The provider demonstrated awareness of equity by ensuring opportunities for progression, training access and role expectations were consistent across the team. Leaders reviewed staffing information and feedback to identify whether particular groups required additional support, ensuring fairness remained embedded in decision‑making.

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate.

Leaders maintained structured governance arrangements supported by defined reporting lines, scheduled audits and routine performance monitoring. Systems for reviewing incidents, staffing, training compliance and care documentation were used to maintain oversight of service quality.

The provider had processes to ensure information was passed between teams and shared with external professionals to support continuity of care. Regular management meetings were used to review priorities, allocate actions and track progress. These arrangements supported consistency across shifts and promoted accountability within the team.

Leaders demonstrated awareness of areas requiring ongoing improvement and used feedback, audits and staff input to guide development plans.

The provider clearly understood and carried out their duty to collaborate and worked in partnership, and services worked seamlessly for people. They always shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.

Leaders maintained strong, well‑established relationships with health, social care and community organisations, enabling people to receive timely and consistent support. Information was shared accurately and without delay, ensuring external professionals always had what they needed to deliver effective input. One healthcare professional said, “The team work incredibly well together and have mutual respect for the manager. The staff follow procedures requested of them and I don’t have to worry about that at all.”

The provider continuously sought ways to strengthen community links and ensured people had meaningful opportunities to remain connected with local groups, services and activities. For example, there was an old car exhibition opposite the home. Staff attended and asked if two residents could view the car if it was brought to the home. This was agreed but staff also encouraged the car owners to take the two people on a short ride in the vehicle. This brought back lots of memories for them as they had the same vehicle in the past. As previously mentioned in the report the provider had already set up a visit to a local football team for one person but celebrated with the local community afterwards by taking people who used the service to a local pub to watch the event on local TV and celebrate together.

Partnership working was embedded at every level of the service, with staff confidently engaging with external teams and using shared learning to refine practice. Leaders used partnership feedback to shape service priorities, ensuring decisions reflected the needs of both people using the service and the wider community.

The provider had a strong focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They always encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contributed to safe, effective practice and research.

Leaders built a strong culture of learning and improvement, using data, feedback and experience to make clear changes that improved outcomes for people. Learning was shared openly through supervision, team discussions and training refreshers, supporting confident, consistent care across the workforce. Staff were supported to reflect on what had gone well, what could be improved and lessons learned, using structured reflection tools that promoted openness, curiosity and continuous learning. This approach ensured learning was embedded at all levels and used constructively to improve care, rather than attribute blame.

Staff were empowered to trial new ideas relating to care delivery, environmental adaptations and wellbeing activities. The service demonstrated strong engagement with external learning and research. For example, the home participated in the VIVALDI research programme, a University College London (UCL) study that ran for nearly three years during and following the COVID‑19 pandemic until April 2024. This research focused on understanding COVID‑19 infection in care homes. Participation reflected a proactive commitment to learning, evidence‑based practice and contributing to wider sector knowledge.

Leaders used feedback from internal reviews, partner organisations and external scrutiny positively to drive improvement. When learning or challenge was identified, systems and practices were refined promptly and effectively, with changes monitored over time to ensure they remained relevant and effective. Strong links with wider learning networks and partner agencies supported shared learning and continuous development, while leaders maintained a clear focus on long‑term sustainability by embedding improvement and innovation into everyday practice as people’s needs evolved.