You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 5 July 2018

The inspection was carried out on 07 June 2018, and was unannounced.

Berry Pomeroy is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Berry Pomeroy is two large town houses which have been joined together. People's bedrooms were provided over four floors, with a passenger lift in-between. There were a range of sitting rooms and a dining room, with an enclosed garden to the rear. Berry Pomeroy is situated in a residential road in Eastbourne. Both men and women lived in the home. Some people were not able to communicate their feedback and experiences verbally of living in the home.

This was the first comprehensive inspection following a change of legal entity and registration on 08 June 2017. At the time of our inspection, 17 people lived in the home.

The home has a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the home. 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 home is run.

People were safe at Berry Pomeroy. Staff knew what their responsibilities were in relation to keeping people safe from the risk of abuse. Staff recognised the signs of abuse and what to look out for. There were systems in place to support staff and people to stay safe.

There was a pro-active approach to promoting people's safety and independence which was reflected in people's risk assessments and care plans. People were supported by staff that had been recruited safely and had checks undertaken to ensure they were suitable for their role.

Medicines were managed safely and people received them as prescribed.

Staff encouraged people to actively participate in activities, pursue their interests and to maintain relationships with people who mattered to them.

People received the support they needed to stay healthy and to access healthcare services.

There were enough staff to keep people safe. The registered manager had appropriate arrangements in place to ensure there were always enough staff on shift.

Each person had an up to date, person centred care plan, which set out how their care and support needs should be met by staff.

Staff received regular training and supervision to help them meet people's needs effectively.

People were supported to eat and drink enough to meet their needs. They also received the support they needed to stay healthy and to access healthcare services.

The Care Quality Commission is required by law to monitor the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. The registered manager and staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Staff showed they were caring and they treated people with dignity and respect and ensured people's privacy was maintained, particularly when being supported with their personal care needs.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The policies and systems in the home supported this practice.

The registered manager ensured the complaints procedure was made available in an accessible format if people wished to make a complaint. Regular checks and reviews of the home made to ensure people experienced good quality safe care and support.

People and staff were encouraged to provide feedback about how the home could be improved. This was used to make changes and improvements that people wanted.

The registered manager provided good leadership. They checked staff were focussed on people experiencing good quality care and support.

Inspection areas



Updated 5 July 2018

The service was safe.

Risks to people’s safety and welfare were managed to make sure they were protected from harm.

Staff knew how to recognise any potential abuse and so help keep people safe.

The registered manager followed safe recruitment practices.

Medicines were managed and recorded in a safe way.

There were enough staff available to meet people’s needs.



Updated 5 July 2018

The service was effective.

People’s needs were fully assessed with them before they moved to the home to make sure that the staff could meet their needs.

Staff received on-going training in areas identified by the provider as key areas. Supervisions and appraisals were carried out by the registered manager.

People were supported to be able to eat and drink sufficient amounts to meet their needs.

Staff were knowledgeable about people’s health needs, and contacted other health and social care professionals if they had concerns about people’s health.

People’s human and legal rights were respected by staff. Staff had the knowledge of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and Mental Capacity Act (2005).



Updated 5 July 2018

The service was caring.

People were supported by kind and caring staff who knew them well.

Staff protected people’s privacy and dignity, and encouraged them to retain their independence where possible.

Staff were aware of people’s preferences, likes and dislikes.

Wherever possible, people were involved in making decisions about their care and staff took account of their individual needs and preferences.



Updated 5 July 2018

The service was responsive.

There were activities located around the home for people to engage in.

The management team responded to people’s needs quickly and appropriately whenever there were changes in people’s need.

The provider had a complaints procedure and people told us they felt able to complain if they needed to.



Updated 5 July 2018

The service was well-led.

There was a quality assurance system and this was effective in rectifying shortfalls identified.

There was an open and positive culture which focused on people.

The provider and registered manager sought people and staff’s feedback and welcomed their suggestions for improvement.