Eastbourne Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant some aspects of the service were not always safe and there was limited assurance about safety. There was an increased risk that people could be harmed.

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

This service scored 41 (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 have a proactive and positive culture of safety based on openness and honesty. Lessons were not always learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. Issues identified at our previous assessments, for example in relation to good governance, had not been successfully addressed. One member of staff said, “Everything needs improving.”

The provider did not always work well with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care. They did not always manage or monitor people’s safety. They did not always make sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services. Visiting healthcare partners had identified and raised concerns during their own monitoring visits to the service. As a result they took the decision to suspend admissions to the service to allow improvements to be made and embedded.

The provider did not always work well with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and how to achieve that. They did not always concentrate on improving people’s lives or protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider did not always share concerns quickly and appropriately. A safeguarding policy was in place, but this contained incorrect information on the processes to be followed if concerns arose. Staff said they were not always confident action would be taken if they raised concerns. One member of staff said, “When you see something that is not right you tell the senior or nurse, but nothing gets done.”

The provider did not work well with people to understand and manage risks. Staff did not provide care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. Issues in this area were identified at our last two assessments of the service. Care records did not always contain consistent or detailed information on risks to people. For example, one person’s records had limited information on their dietary support, which had not been shared with kitchen staff. Another person’s records had inconsistent information on how to safely manage their skin integrity. This placed people at risk of harm.

The provider did not always detect and control potential risks in the care environment. They did not make sure that equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. Safety issues relating to the premises which were identified during our last assessment had been addressed, but during this assessment we identified new safety concerns. These included people having unsupervised access to areas of the building that were not in use, and alarm cords being inaccessible to people in emergency situations.

Remedial action was taken following our visit, but these issues had not been addressed by the provider’s own governance systems. Required testing and safety certificates in relation to the environment were in place. Plans were in place to support people in emergency situations.

The provider did not always make sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff. They did not always make sure staff received effective support,

supervision and development. They did not always work together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. At our last assessment we found that staff were not always supported with effective supervision and appraisals. At this assessment this remained a concern. Meetings took place but these were primarily used to set out expectations of working practice, with limited scope for staff to discuss their own professional growth and development. Staffing levels were monitored, but records showed that on some days the home was short-staffed and some staff appeared to be working excessive hours. Most staff spoke negatively about staffing levels, and during our visit we saw staff were very busy and did not always have time to interact with people in a meaningful way. One member of staff said, “I do not feel that staffing levels are adequate to provide our residents with the high standard of care they deserve. On some days, we are under extreme pressure and can only manage the minimum level of care for each resident. In my opinion, this is not good enough.”

The provider did not always assess or manage the risk of infection. They did not always detect and control the risk of it spreading or share concerns with appropriate agencies promptly. Most areas of the home were clean and tidy, but some areas needed redecoration where paint had chipped away from surfaces and prevented effective cleaning. A food hygiene inspection of the kitchen in March 2026 by an environmental health officer, had identified some areas of improvement that had not been completed by the time of our assessment. Remedial action was taken following our visit.

The provider did not make sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences.

Medicines were not managed safely as clear and consistent records were not always kept. This had been an issue at our last two assessments of the service. Guidance was available for creams applied by care staff as part of personal care; however, records were not fully completed. Patch application records did not always demonstrate rotation of where the patch was applied, in line with manufacturers guidance to prevent side effects.

Some people were prescribed medicines to be taken on a ‘when required’ basis or with a variable dose. Information for how these medicines should be administered needed further person-centred detail. Staff did not always record information on why medicines were given and if they were effective in line with the provider’s policy. Information on how people took their medicines if given covertly was not clear. Medicine information in care plans was not always updated when changes happened.

Medicines were stored securely including controlled drugs. Temperatures were recorded for the medicine rooms and fridges. Comprehensive policies and procedures were in place to support the administration of medicines. Audits had picked up some of the issues we found but these had not been effectively addressed.