Eastbourne Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

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

This service scored 54 (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 always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. Further and sustained improvement was needed in relation to medicines management and the monitoring and consistent recording of risk.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. Since our last assessment improvements had been made in how the provider planned and monitored people’s support with eating and drinking. However, we received mixed feedback on the quality of meals at the service from both people and staff.

The provider did not always work well across teams and services to support people. They did not always share their assessment of people’s needs when people moved between different services. Healthcare partners told us records did not always contain accurate or up to date information on people’s support needs, records we reviewed confirmed this.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. Care records were not always consistent and up to date. However, staff were knowledgeable about people’s care and support needs. People were supported to access healthcare partners to monitor and promote their health.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive andconsistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. At our last assessment we found that although healthcare partners were consulted, the outcomes and subsequent guidance for staff was not always recorded. This continued to be an issue at this assessment.

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 checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA, and whether any conditions on authorisations to deprive a person of their liberty had the appropriate legal authority and were being met.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment. At our last assessment records did not consistently record people’s decisions or those made on their behalf. This remained the case at this latest assessment. Consent to care and other decisions was not always recorded for all people. Records were also not consistently kept where decisions were made on people’s behalf, including what legal powers were used to make these.