Eastbourne Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last inspection under the previous provider, we rated this key question good. Following this assessment, the rating for this key question has changed to requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

The provider was in breach of 2 legal regulations in relation to the safe care and treatment of people and good governance.

This service scored 55 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Due to the concerns identified during the inspection, we could not be assured people received a high quality, compassionate and caring service.

We received concerns from 3 people and several staff about staff practices and attitude at night. The actions described to us demonstrated a lack of compassion and

respect for people’s dignity. One person said night staff had told them to “wee in [their incontinence] pad” rather than support them to use the commode.

The nominated individual told us they carried out unannounced visits at night to monitor staff practices and ensure people’s needs were met.

We observed positive interactions between people and staff. Staff spoke affectionately about the people they supported. Comments included, “My little tribe - I think a lot of them" and “Going into their room and seeing their face light up it makes my day.”

People were not always treated as individuals. 3 people raised concerns which demonstrated a lack of person-centred care at night.

Several staff told us that more activities were required. Care plans included information about people’s hobbies and interests, however, records did not always demonstrate how staff ensured people’s social needs were met.

There were positive interactions between people and staff. Staff were aware of people’s likes and preferences and could describe these to us. Comments included, “You get to know what they are like, every day is different. It’s the little things you do that are the most important to build relationships – little things mean the most.”

An effective system was not fully in place to ensure that people’s independence, choice and control was promoted.

We identified shortfalls with staff practices around supporting one person with their emotional needs. In addition, care plans did not accurately document people’s needs in relation to areas such as their specific medical conditions, nutrition and hydration and continence care. This meant that information to guide staff on promoting people’s independence choice and control in relation to their needs was not accurate.

Staff told us they felt activities provision needed to be improved. The provider had already identified that additional staff were required to oversee and deliver activities and was in the process of recruiting.

The activities coordinator was dividing their time between care shifts and activities provision. A member of the domestic team was also organising some activities. They spoke enthusiastically about their involvement and organised an improvised game of air hockey.

There were no restrictions on visiting which was in line with government guidance. People could see their friends and family when they wished.

People’s immediate needs were not always responded to promptly or in line with their wishes.

We received feedback from 3 people and several staff who raised concerns about people’s care and support at night which they said did not meet people’s immediate

needs.

We identified shortfalls relating to people’s specific medical conditions, the management of distressed behaviours, meeting people’s social needs, medicines management and nutrition and hydration which posed a risk to people’s health and wellbeing.

The provider was taking action to help support the wellbeing and enablement of staff.

The home had been through a period of change and uncertainty. We received mixed feedback from staff about their wellbeing at work. Some staff felt supported; others felt more support was needed.

The nominated individual and director acknowledged the difficulties staff had encountered whilst the home had been in administration and spoke about the support which staff now required. They had recruited and brought in a senior management team to oversee the service and support the staff team.

The provider was working with the local NHS to provide staff with mental health and wellbeing support