Eastbourne Gardens Care Home

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.

This service is dual registered, this is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated 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.

There was a positive learning culture within the home. Systems and processes were in place to report and record accidents and incidents , with clear management oversight to ensure appropriate actions taken to identify any improvements or changes needed.

Incidents and concerns were regularly reviewed by managers to identify any patterns and trends. Where learning was identified, actions were taken to reduce risk and strengthen practice, supporting continuous improvement.

Learning from accidents and incidents were shared with staff during daily handovers and team meetings. This meant staff were aware of important updates and changes. Management monitored actions and progress to support improvements and reduce the likelihood of similar incidents occurring again.

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.

A full assessment was completed before people moved to Eastbourne Gardens. This ensured individual needs could be met. We discussed with the registered manager how people’s needs continued to be reviewed following admission. They told us that at times people’s needs may be higher than previously expected, often due to the change in environment. Staff worked closely with people and their families to make transitions as organised as possible. For people living with dementia this could be a distressing time. We saw staff supporting a person who had recently moved onto a different part of the home. They were seen to be mobilising around, staff supported them with kindness, offering reassurance and providing distraction when they became anxious.

Staff worked closely with GPs and health professionals, care plans included relevant assessments and clinical guidance. The service continued to have good, consistent relationships with a range of local healthcare professionals. The registered manager worked with staff to identify and respond to any changes to people’s health. Concerns were escalated promptly and referrals completed to appropriate health professionals, such as occupational therapists, speech and language therapists (SALT). When people were admitted to hospital staff ensured all appropriate information was available to ensure a smooth transition.

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 protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

Good systems were in place to safeguard people from abuse. Staff received regular safeguarding training and demonstrated a good knowledge and understanding around how to recognise and report concerns.

The home had clear safeguarding policies and reporting procedures in place. This enabled any trends to be picked up promptly and ensured actions were taken to minimise harm and maintain people’s safety. The registered manager notified relevant agencies and followed up with these effectively.

People’s mental capacity had been considered. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The MCA requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA. In care homes, and some hospitals, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We saw best interest meetings had taken place to involve relatives and relevant health professionals in decisions about people’s care.

The service was working within the principles of the MCA and if needed, DoLS authorisations were in place to deprive a person of their liberty.

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.

People told us they felt safe living at Eastbourne Gardens. One told us, “They help me when I need it, I can do a lot for myself, but I know they are there to keep me safe when I need that extra help, to make sure I don’t fall.”

Care plans and risk assessments in place for identified needs. Staff knew people well and worked with people and relatives to ensure any identified risks to people were mitigated. For example, to ensure people were monitored if they were at risk of pressure damage or a risk of falls.

People were supported to take positive risks to enhance their quality of life whilst balancing safety. Staff worked with people to ensure they remained safe when taking part in activities and events of their choice. Care records were accurate and up to date, giving staff clear guidance on how to manage specific risks. Staff supported people safely and equipment was available where appropriate.

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

The home was clean and welcoming. There were designated maintenance employees to ensure environmental checks and servicing was completed. Any maintenance issues identified were discussed with management and addressed promptly by the maintenance team, and where required external companies were used for specialised work. Equipment was in place for people’s needs, including electronic hoists, assisted baths, and mobility aids.

However, some feedback included areas of the home appeared, ‘tired and in need of a refresh’. A full refurbishment of the home had recently commenced. We saw some bedrooms had been updated and discussed with management the plan to fully upgrade all areas of the home. This would include all furniture and decoration of communal spaces and people’s rooms to provide a more modern look to the home.

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.

Safe recruitment processes were followed; relevant checks were completed before people started working at the home. New staff completed a range of training and an induction into the home; this included a period of shadowing experienced staff. One to one and group supervision and staff meetings took place.

Staff received training to ensure they were able to safely meet the needs of people living in the home. Staff felt supported with training needs and training competencies had been completed. Registered nurses are supported to attend courses and training to ensure they stayed up to date with current practice guidelines and to support their professional registration. All staff were supported to attend courses and updates to ensure best practice was maintained. People and relatives told us they had confidence in the skills and knowledge of staff.

However, staff expressed mixed feedback regarding staffing changes and staff allocation which had occurred since the change of provider. The provider had planned changes and hoped it would facilitate a more joined up home with staff working between both sections of the home. Dependency needs were assessed and reviewed regularly to ensure staffing levels remained safe and appropriate to meet people needs.

It was clear staff allocation changes were recent and had not yet become embedded. The provider told us they would discuss this further with staff to ensure staffing levels and staff allocation were understood. We were assured by the management that safe and effective staffing levels were maintained.

We received feedback from a high number of relatives who all spoke positively regarding staff and the high quality of care provided. Relatives all confirmed they felt their relative was safe. Some comments included that staff appeared very busy and at times staffing appeared stretched which occasionally led to people having to wait to receive support. We saw that call bell answering times were regularly monitored by the registered manager and there had not been any concerns identified.

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.

Infection prevention and control policies and procedures were in place. Regular audits and checks were completed to ensure oversight of all areas of the home. Staff received infection control training and implemented their learning in their day-to-day practice. Housekeeping staff were available 7 days a week and understood their role in following guidelines to promote good infection control. Staff had access to personal protective equipment (PPE) and we observed staff using PPE appropriately.

We received positive feedback from people and relatives regarding the cleanliness of the home. People told us staff cleaned their rooms every day and we saw that all areas of the home appeared clean and tidy. Relative feedback included, “I see staff wear their PPE when they work with someone”, “It is all clean and tidy”, “[relative] is safe and well looked after.”

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.

People received their medicines as prescribed. Medicines were administered by trained staff. Staff were knowledgeable about people, and the medicines they had been prescribed. We observed staff taking the time to talk to people and explain their medications to them.

Electronic medicine administration records were completed when people had taken their medicines. Some people had been prescribed medicines to take ‘as required’ (PRN), for example, for pain relief. There was guidance about why these medicines were needed but this lacked some detail for example, in relation to when to give a person a PRN laxative, as this may differ person to person, or when a person may require medication prescribed for anxiety or agitation as triggers and agitation may present differently. Staff confirmed this information would be updated to ensure more person specific detail was included.

Regular medicines reviews and audits had been completed to ensure robust oversight, any identified areas for improvement included actions taken were clearly documented.