Eastbourne Care Home

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

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

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

This service scored 61 (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 were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. Care plans were not consistently detailed or personalised, with some being person-centred while others had limited information around the support people wanted or needed. People’s role in planning and reviewing their care was also not always recorded in their care plans.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity. Though there had been no admissions into the service since our last assessment, there had been a turnover of leaders and staff which meant they were still getting to know people and their support needs. Healthcare partners told us it was sometimes difficult to find the latest information on people’s current care needs.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Staff were able to communicate with people effectively and help them make their voices heard. For example, staff had worked hard to develop personalised communication cards for one person to help them express their views.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result. A survey for people and relatives was completed in March 2026, which contained largely positive feedback. However, where feedback was given, it was not always clear if or how this had been acted on. For example, at a meeting for people at the service in April 2026 some concerns had been raised about activities at the service. When we visited for our assessment this issue had not been addressed.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People were supported to access healthcare partners where needed, for both regular appointments and in emergency situations.

Leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this. There was limited evidence of the involvement of people in planning their care or setting the outcomes they wanted to achieve.

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. Records showed that people were encouraged to think about and share their future plans.