You are here

Eastbourne Grange Requires improvement

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 2 March 2019

About the service:

Eastbourne Grange Residential Care Home is a residential care home in the Meads area of Eastbourne. The home provides accommodation for up to 25 older people some of whom are living with dementia. At the time of the inspection there were 19 people living at the home.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at

People’s experience of using this service:

The registered manager completed some audits but there were inconsistencies in people’s records. Improvements were needed to audits. Some care plans and risk assessments had not been completed. Mental capacity assessments were not consistent. A lack of audits for complaints and incidents meant that there were some areas where the registered manager did not have clear oversight of the service. Lessons learnt and best practice could not be established in some areas. The registered manager had sought feedback from people, relatives and professionals within the last year. However, few surveys had been received and this did not allow for oversight of issues. The results that were received had not been analysed for patterns or trends, nor had feedback been given.

Where people were not able to make decisions themselves, some mental capacity assessments had been completed. Five people had Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) where they were not able to understand about the security of the building. The registered manager was not aware that two people’s DoLS had conditions attached for restricting their liberty and therefore, these conditions had not been met.

On the first day of inspection, we observed that lunch-time was quiet, with minimal interaction from staff. The registered manager was aware that this was an area for improvement and assured us they would act to improve this. On the second day of inspection, music was played and people were more engaged.

People told us they felt safe. Staff understood the risks associated with the people they looked after. Staff had knowledge of individual people and they were aware of what to do should a safeguarding situation arise. Staffing levels were sufficient to provide a good level of care and support for all people. There were regular health and safety checks of the environment and people had person centred evacuation plans. Medicines were stored and given appropriately and infection control procedures were well managed.

Staff had the skills and knowledge to meet people needs. Staff received appropriate training and support to enable them to look after people. They received regular supervision to support them in their roles.

People and their relatives thought that staff were caring and that people were well cared for. Staff interactions were observed throughout the inspection and it was clear that all were very attentive and understanding of people’s needs. People’s dignity and privacy was promoted. People were asked discreetly if they needed help with personal care. When entering bedrooms, even if the door was open, staff would knock before entering.

The service responded well to people’s needs. Person centred care was evident and people were provided with choices throughout each day. There was a comprehensive activities programme and the feedback from people was positive.

Staff responded to people in a way that suited their needs. One person who had difficulty verbally communicating was seen with staff who were speaking clearly and made their messages clear by holding the person’s arm or putting their arm around them. This made the person smile. People’s communication needs were met. Both daily activities and menu choices were displayed in pictures around the home. There were easy read signs on all toilets and bathrooms to familiarise people with the layout of the building.

The registered manager was very well thought of by staff, residents and relatives. It was clear that they knew all the people well and that they spent time helping with day

Inspection areas



Updated 2 March 2019

The service was safe.

Details are in our Safe findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 2 March 2019

The service was not consistently effective.

Details are in our Effective findings below.



Updated 2 March 2019

The service was caring.

Details are in our Caring findings below.



Updated 2 March 2019

The service was responsive.

Details are in our Responsive findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 2 March 2019

The service was not consistently well-led.

Details are in our Well-Led findings below.