Eastbourne

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

This means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated good.

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

Staff managed access and flow well. The design, layout, and furnishings of the premises supported clients’ treatment, privacy and dignity. Staff supported clients with activities outside the service, such as work, education and family relationships. The service met the needs of all clients, including those with a protected characteristic. Staff helped clients with communication, advocacy and cultural and spiritual support. The service treated concerns and complaints seriously, investigated them and learned lessons from the result.

We have not awarded this service a score for Responsive.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Responsive.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Staff gave examples of how care had been planned around client’s individual needs, including faith. This allowed prayer times to be observed and the service had measures in place to accommodate client’s needs on a case by case basis including the supply of appropriate food significant to meet faith needs, such as halal. Clients were involved in menu planning, food shopping and meal choices. Hot drinks and snacks were available at all times.

Clients described a structured programme that gradually increased independence, including supported access to appointments initially and independent access later in the programme. There was close coordination between detox and rehabilitation to reduce relapse risk. At discharge, there was comprehensive aftercare planning, and support with housing and social care needs.

Care plans reflected the strengths and goals of clients and included actions to develop their recovery capital. Clients were offered the opportunity to meet before coming into the building and were also allocated a worker to help prepare them for what to expect. Clients confirmed they were fully involved in developing their care plans, received copies, and that plans were reviewed regularly. Risk assessments were completed collaboratively, with the client’s agreement sought.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Staff supported clients to maintain contact with their families and carers with allocated free time. Several clients reported successfully rebuilding relationships with family members and regaining involvement with their children.

There were community based activities in place including days out, sports and visiting local allotments. Transport was available with the recent purchase of an electric vehicle.

Where necessary, clients were supported to make arrangements for accommodation following discharge back into their community, with their local housing providers.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Staff made notifications to external bodies as needed and the service complied with the Accessible Information Standard. An interpreter service was available and staff had access to voice-to-text technology that converts spoken words into written text in real time using artificial intelligence and speech recognition

Staff ensured that clients could obtain information on treatments, local services, clients’ rights, and how to complain. Information leaflets were available on a range of other services, their rights and clients that we spoke with knew how to complain.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The service had a complaints policy and people we spoke with knew how to raise a complaint. There were also weekly clients’ meetings as a forum to raise any issues and staff knew how to handle complaints appropriately.

There had been three informal complaints within the last 12 months, these were all resolved without requiring formal escalation. Actions and learnings were identified from these and communicated to staff to enable better outcomes for people who used the service.

Staff protected clients who raised concerns or complaints from discrimination and harassment. The registered manager spoke positively about good use of observations by staff and an open and transparent culture, he told us “rarely are people not comfortable to raise an issue there. They'll also raise things with their coach, or we might notice a change in the group dynamic or behaviours that we'll ask about.”

When clients complained or raised concerns, they received feedback as well as having access to and information about advocacy services.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Staff made reasonable adjustments for clients and ensured the needs of clients with mobility issues were met – therapies took place on the ground floor and ground floor accommodation was available. Additionally, we saw evidence of the use of technology for people able to attend therapies virtually should they feel anxiety around attending in person.

Staff ensured clients had access to post-discharge care as they approached the end of the programme and a coach was available for 12 months afterwards to offer support as needed.

The service was easy to access. Staff planned and managed discharge well and were able to signpost people to alternative pathways for people whose needs it could not meet.

The service had assessed the needs of the local community to ensure the service was able to treat the community it served.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff within the service and the wider organisation promoted a culture in which the people using the service felt empowered to give their views, whether one to one with staff in coaching sessions, in written feedback or the weekly client meetings.

The provider had undertaken equality impact assessments of their policies and procedures to ensure they did not place vulnerable people or people with protected characteristics at a disadvantage. Staff were trained in equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights and compliance rates were 95%

The service considered and addressed barriers to access for specific communities and those with protected characteristics. Spiritual and religious preferences were respected without any barriers to attending church, mosques, etc. Visits to and from places of worship or visiting clergy could be arranged by request.

The service reviewed client outcomes in line with protected characteristics and took actions to address inequitable outcomes. All complaints were discussed at the Quality Assurance Group and learning shared with staff as well as policies updated where appropriate.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Staff support clients to make decisions about their care and treatment and their future, and we saw evidence of families and carers being involved in decisions about care. Staff created personalised care plans to account for the client’s needs, wishes and feelings. Goals and objectives for discharge were regularly reviewed.

Staff supported clients to create and review crisis and relapse plans and Eastbourne had links in place with employment and training partners, including the Jobcentre and a number of training scheme providers.