You are here

Sovereign Lodge Care Centre Requires improvement

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 29 November 2018

Sovereign Lodge is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided and both were looked at during this inspection.

The inspection took place on the 16 October 2018. This visit was unannounced. A second inspection day took place on the 17 October 2018 and was announced.

Sovereign Lodge is situated in Eastbourne and provides accommodation, nursing and personal care for up to 64 older people. Some people lived at the home whilst others were there for short stays, otherwise known as respite. There were 60 people using the service at the time of inspection; 56 living there and four staying for respite.

Sovereign Lodge provided accommodation across three separate floors, each of which had separate adapted facilities. The ground floor provided care to people with mainly physical health needs, while the first floor specialised in providing care to people living with dementia. People that lived on the second floor were more independent and required less support from staff. There were numerous communal areas for people to relax in and a hairdresser on site. There was also ample and well-maintained garden space which we saw people enjoying during inspection.

At our last inspection in August 2017, the service was rated 'Requires Improvement'. During this inspection, we found some areas still required improvement. This is therefore the second inspection where the service has been rated Requires Improvement.

There was not a registered manager at the time of inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. There was a home manager who had only been at the service for 8 weeks. They had already applied to be the registered manager and were currently going through the registration process with us.

A number of shortfalls were found within record keeping which demonstrated current auditing processes needed to be further developed. Although there was a care plan audit, this had not identified all of the issues we found on inspection. People's support needs were not consistently identified in their care plans, which were hand written and often difficult to read. There were limited assessments with regard to specific support needs, such as diabetes, swallowing difficulties and positive behaviour support. Documentation that was missing or incomplete was not always identified. Staff we spoke with had a thorough knowledge of people and their support needs, which meant where shortfalls were identified, there was limited impact to people. However, there was a potential risk that if unfamiliar or new staff were to read care plans, they would not have all the information they required to support people.

During observations of the lunch-time experience, we found staff were not always responsive to people, particularly if they became anxious or required support with food. Meal-times were task-focused and once staff had served people their meals, there was less interaction. This had already been identified by the home manager, however more improvements were needed to ensure people were always engaged with. For one person, changes in their health had not been responded to effectively or in a timely way.

People told us they felt safe. Staff demonstrated a good knowledge of how to safeguard people and there were suitable numbers of staff to meet people's support needs. Medicines were managed in such a way that people received them safely. Checks of the building and equipment were completed regularly by the maintenance person and ensured the environment remained safe.

People were supported to have maximum choice an

Inspection areas



Updated 29 November 2018

The service was safe.

People received their medicines safely.

There were risk assessments for people and the building to ensure they and the environment remained safe.

There were suitable numbers of staff to meet people’s needs that were recruited safely.



Updated 29 November 2018

The service was effective.

Staff had the skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs. They had a good understanding of mental capacity and choice.

People were supported to have input from health and social care professionals when they felt unwell.

The building had been adapted to meet the needs of people.



Updated 29 November 2018

The service was caring.

People, relatives and professionals all felt that the staff team were kind, caring and enthusiastic about supporting others.

We observed some genuine, caring interactions between people and staff.

People’s independence, dignity and privacy was promoted and respected.


Requires improvement

Updated 29 November 2018

The service was not consistently responsive.

Staff did not always respond to people or their needs in a timely way.

Staff had a good understanding of people’s communication needs and supported them to share their views.

People and their relatives were confident about the complaints process and that any issues would be listened to and actioned.

Relatives were positive about how their loved ones were supported with end of life care.


Requires improvement

Updated 29 November 2018

The service was not consistently well-led.

Quality audits had not identified inconsistencies within care documentation. People’s needs were not always reflected in their care plans.

People, relatives and staff spoke highly of the home manager and felt they had made positive changes in the short time they had been in post.

Views of care provision were valued, actions taken to improve and feedback given to demonstrate the changes made.