• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Care at Home Services (South East) Limited – Eastbourne, Hailsham and the Weald

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Ground Floor, 1 Town House Garden, Market Street, Hailsham, BN27 2AE (01323) 431314

Provided and run by:
Care at Home Services (South East) Limited

Important: This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

Date of assessment: 31 March to 2 April 2026. Care at Home Services is a domiciliary care service providing support to people in their own homes. The Care Quality Commission only regulates services providing personal care and not everyone supported was in receipt of personal care. The service supported 118 people, 103 of whom were in receipt of personal care.

We undertook this full assessment due to the age of the previous rating for this service. We needed to make sure that people were being supported safely. We did not find any concerns or ongoing risk at this assessment. There was a newly appointed manager at the service who at the time of our assessment had not yet registered. We have therefore referred to them throughout this report as the manager.

Although risks had been identified specific to people and their home environments, there were some assessments missing. A person had a large piece of medical equipment in their home that presented a potential hazard and some people lived with anxiety and depression but these areas although known about, did not have risk assessments in place. The manager took immediate steps to address this issue.

Accidents and incidents had been reported and recorded with any learning shared among staff. Safeguarding issues had been appropriately raised and staff displayed good knowledge about safety. People who lacked capacity to make some decisions were supported in their best interests and this was documented. Staff were recruited safely and received appropriate support and training. Infection control and medicine administration were managed safely. Processes were in place if people’s support needs increased and they needed to move to a residential home or other setting.

People’s support needs were assessed before the service began care calls. Support needs were subject to ongoing reviews. Staff worked well with other professionals, making sure that all needs were met in a timely way. Some people were supported with the nutritional and hydration needs and staff knew the steps to take if they had concerns about people’s weight. Staff knew the importance of gaining consent from people before carrying out any task or activity.

People were supported by a caring and compassionate staff team who knew about the importance of always maintaining people’s dignity. Staff knew people well and people’s likes, dislikes and preferred routines were respected and supported. People were encouraged to be as independent as possible within the confines of their personal safety. People’s immediate needs were met by a responsive staffing team. Staff were supported by the manager and wider management team to achieve a positive work life balance and staff wellbeing was promoted.

Care was person centred. People were supported to achieve goals and attend appointments when required. Communication between the service and people worked well and although people told us they did not receive rotas, they could contact the office at any time and they felt supported. Few complaints had been recorded but those that had, had been dealt with appropriately and in a timely way. People were supported to have the access they needed to any additional professional support and to attend appointments or other events for example, attending church. Care calls accommodated people’s social and professional meetings. People were given the opportunity to make advanced decisions about their future care and this was documented.

Despite the manager being new in post, they had a clear vision about the future of the service putting people’s needs at the centre of their plans. Staff told us that the manager and wider management team were supportive and approachable and that they had opportunities to speak up and raise issues when they needed to. Auditing processes were well established and were overseen by the manager who looked at patterns and trends and ways to improve the service. Staff told us about a diverse staffing team who worked well together within a working culture where diversity was supported and celebrated.

30 January 2018

During a routine inspection

Care at home services (South East) is a domiciliary care agency. At the time of our inspection they provided care to 108 people living in their own houses and flats. It provides a service to older adults and some younger disabled adults.

Not everyone using Care at home services receives regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided. At the time of inspection 74 people were receiving support with regulated activities.

This was the first inspection for Care at home services (South East) at their new office location in Polegate.

At the previous inspection in 2016, the service was rated as ‘Requires Improvement’ overall. There was a continued breach of Regulation 17, Good governance; this was due to a lack of auditing tools that monitored the service and the provider not consistently maintaining records. This meant that there was not clear oversight of the service and the people accessing it. There was also a breach of Regulation 11, Need for consent. This was due to the provider not meeting the requirements of those who lacked the mental capacity to make an informed decision. It was evident from this inspection that improvements had been made to these areas identified previously and it was now meeting the required regulations.

Care at Home Services (South East) had a registered manager. ‘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.’

It was recognised that the registered manager had worked hard to address the issues that had been identified at their previous inspection. However a number of shortfalls were found within record keeping which suggested current auditing processes needed to be developed and embedded further. It was clear that staff knew people well. However information was not always clearly detailed within their care plans. This included information to support staff to know how to appropriately manage challenging behaviour or communication needs for people with a sensory impairment.

Some people took medicines on an ‘as required’ basis for pain management. Staff told us how a person indicated they were in pain. However, this was not documented within the person’s medicine assessment about pain relief. There was a potential risk that if unfamiliar carers visited the person, they would not have all the information they required to meet their needs fully.

Current auditing processes had not identified that a person had not received pain relief medicine as prescribed. Audits of people’s care documentation had not yet been implemented, which meant that gaps and inconsistencies in records had not been highlighted.

By the final day of inspection, the registered manager had addressed these issues. This demonstrated a willingness to improve.

People and their relatives felt safe. Staff demonstrated knowledge of safeguarding and the processes to follow if they suspected abuse was happening. There were suitable numbers of staff to meet people’s support needs.

People and their relative’s felt that staff were suitably skilled and trained to do their job effectively. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of seeking consent from people before providing care. Staff also spoke positively about a new and improved induction programme and said that they received regular supervision, spot checks and annual appraisals. Staff felt that positive practise was recognised and areas of improvement identified.

People and their relative’s spoke highly of the staff that supported them. They found them to be kind, compassionate and knowledgeable of people and their support needs. People felt that their independence was promoted and their dignity and privacy was maintained at all times.

Care plan documentation for people was detailed with the specific care needs required during each care call. Any changes to health or support needs were discussed with a relevant health professional. People and their relative’s felt that staff met all of their needs. They were knowledgeable of the complaints procedure and were comfortable raising any concerns. Complaints were resolved in a timely manner and people were satisfied with outcomes.

People, their relatives and staff spoke highly of the management team and how there had been many improvements since the last inspection. The management team sought regular feedback from people which was assessed to identify any trends or patterns and were acted upon. Staff also advised that they had regular staff meetings to discuss areas of good practise and areas for improvement.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.