Eastbourne Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

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 inadequate. This meant there were widespread and significant shortfalls in service leadership. Leaders and the culture they created did not assure the delivery of high-quality care.

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

This service scored 36 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Improvements were required to ensure processes were in place to make sure people achieved positive outcomes and staff were enabled to contribute to the development of the service.

The home had been through a period of change and uncertainty. The previous provider had been in administration. A new provider had acquired the home in August 2024.

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.

We received mixed feedback from staff about the culture at the home. Some staff felt supported, others felt more support was needed.

Our findings at this assessment did not evidence that leaders had the capability to ensure high quality care was delivered and risks were well managed. We identified

shortfalls across the service in relation to medicines management, people’s care and support and the maintenance of records.

The provider had implemented a new management structure which included the introduction of new senior managers to oversee the service, implement change and help improve the culture and morale at the home.

An effective system was not in place to ensure staff were actively enabled and promoted to raise concerns and speak up.

Some staff told us they had previously raised concerns about night staff which had not been acted upon. In addition, staff meetings had not been carried out as planned.

During the assessment, we identified shortfalls across the service including medicines management. Records did not evidence nursing staff had raised concerns. Nursing staff have a professional duty under their regulator, the Nursing and Midwifery Council’s (NMC) and their code of conduct to speak up if they consider people are at risk.

The provider had implemented a clinical education programme for staff to provide further training and support.

The provider promoted equality, diversity and inclusion amongst staff at the home.

The nominated individual told us the home was working with the local NHS to provide staff mental health and wellbeing support. There was also wellbeing support for LGBTQ+ staff.

An effective quality monitoring system was not in place to ensure regulatory requirements were met. We identified shortfalls across the service in relation to medicines

management, people’s care and support and the maintenance of records.

When we requested an action plan from the provider, we found some of the actions the provider identified as 'met' were still ongoing.

At the time of our assessment there was a manager in place who had applied to be registered with CQC.

The provider had brought in a senior management team to oversee the service and implement improvements.

The home was being monitored and supported by the local authority to ensure the correct procedures were in place to keep people safe. A representative from the local authority told us, “The Council is continuing to work with Care Quality Commission, Integrated Care Board and the provider to address the concerns raised.”

An effective system was not in place to identify and share lessons learned, so action could be taken to minimise the risk of any reoccurrence.

The provider’s audits had not been effective at implementing improvements in a timely way when issues had been identified. For example, recurring shortfalls had been found with infection control practices. Other concerns we identified during the assessment had not been picked up by internal audits meaning necessary improvements had not been made.

Records showed lessons were not always learned or shared with staff following accidents, incidents, safeguarding concerns and complaints.

The provider had identified more frequent staff meetings were required to inform and reassure staff, and ensure learning was being transferred.