Eastbourne Care Home

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 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 inadequate. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant there were shortfalls in leadership. Leaders and the culture they created did not always assure the delivery of high-quality care.

The provider was in breach of legal regulation in relation to the governance of the service.

This service scored 50 (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 did not have a clear shared vision, strategy and culture which was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, and engagement. Staff said that culture and values of the provider were not always inclusive and effective in driving improvement. One member of staff said, “At staff meetings, they (leaders) are dismissive.” A new manager had been appointed, and they were working with the provider to review how a shared direction and culture could be established.

Following our last assessment the provider had continued to implement a new management structure, which included the appointment of a new manager. Further and sustained improvement was needed to ensure leaders embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. For example, staff said they felt they were not always informed of planned changes or developments at the service. People and relatives were also not always clear on who was leading the service. One person said, “The manager changes often, I don’t know who it is, but they should come and introduce themselves.”

Some improvement was found in staff reporting that they had the freedom to speak up. One member of staff said, "Any concerns I have I would immediately report to (the) appropriate person." However, other staff did not always feel they could speak up and that their voice would be heard. One member of staff said, “There is potentially opportunity to give feedback, but senior management team does not want any negative feedback even if it is the truth. They become threatening using your job as a weapon against you.” Another told us, “I have expressed my concerns, but it goes on deaf ears.” Further and sustained improvement was needed to ensure staff were encouraged and protected to raise concerns.

The provider did not always work towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them. There was not a consistent sense from staff that they felt valued and included in how the service was run. One member of staff said, “We are not supported at all.”

Some improvements had been made in the provider’s governance processes since our last assessment. For example, safeguarding and clinical oversight monitoring was now more effective. However, these had still not always identified or addressed issues at the service. For example, when we visited for this assessment, we found issues with the safety of the premises and with records that had not been either identified or addressed by the provider’s quality assurance systems. The rating from our last assessment was not displayed at the service or on the provider’s website, as is required by law. Following our visit the rating was put on display at the service but not on the provider’s website.

The service was being monitored and supported by the local authority to ensure the correct procedures were in place to keep people safe.Monitoring visits were taking place which had identified improvements, but these needed to be embedded and sustained.

In some areas the service had developed positively since our last inspection, but in others further and sustained improvement was needed. We also identified an ongoing breach of regulation in relation to good governance. Risks to people and consent to care was not always effectively obtained or recorded. Systems were in place to obtain feedback, but those involved did not always feel these were effective. As such, the provider’s governance processes had not consistently introduced or sustained improvement.