CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Bexhill-on-Sea
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Staff understood individual risks, medicines were given safely, and staffing and recruitment arrangements were suitable.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had training and supervision to meet people's needs. People were supported with food, health care, consent and communication, including through best-interest decisions where needed.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff supported choice, privacy and independence and had built positive relationships with people.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs, preferences and routines. People were supported to communicate, take part in activities, maintain relationships and raise concerns in accessible ways.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had regular audits, staff meetings and feedback systems. Inspectors noted that fire-door improvements had not initially been progressed promptly, but this had been resolved by the inspection.
What inspectors found, July 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with a previous delay in progressing fire-door improvements now resolved.
This was an unannounced inspection by one inspector on 11 July 2019. The inspector observed the three people living in the home, including during meals, activities and contact with staff. They spoke with staff and health and social care professionals and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The inspection found that people were safe and supported by trained staff who understood their needs. Medicines were given safely. Staff were kind and respectful, promoted independence and used different ways to help people communicate and make choices.
Care was tailored to each person. People were supported with health, food, activities and links with the community. The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led.
This means the inspectors found a good standard of care at the time of the visit. The last inspection, published in December 2016, was also rated Good.
Personalised support
Care plans were based on people's preferences, routines and communication needs. Families and professionals were involved in reviews.
“People received personalised care that was tailored around their wishes, preferences and routines.” from the report
Kind relationships
People appeared comfortable and happy with staff. Staff knew people's interests and supported them in a calm and respectful way.
“Everyone we spoke to was consistent in their views that staff were kind, caring and supportive.” from the report
Communication and choice
Staff used pictures, signs, objects and communication passports to help people express choices and views.
“We observed staff using different tools to communicate with people.” from the report
Skilled staff
Staff received training in areas linked to the needs of people living in the home. They were observed using this knowledge in practice.
“Staff had received training in areas such as moving and handling, safeguarding, mental capacity, first aid and medicines and had the skills and knowledge to meet people's needs.” from the report
Activities and independence
People had individual activity programmes and were supported to go out, build skills and take part in community life.
“People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible to gain new skills and become more independent.” from the report
Delay with fire-door improvements
needs fixingAudits had identified that fire doors needed improvement, but the work was not completed promptly despite follow-up. The report says this had been resolved by the inspection.
“However, whilst we found that their audit processes had identified improvements required to fire doors these had not been progressed in a timely way despite chasing from the registered manager.” from the report
- 01How are my relative's communication needs recorded and used by new or temporary staff?
- 02How will you support my relative to build independence and take part in activities outside the home?
- 03How are medicines monitored, including as-required medicines, and how are families involved?
- 04What fire-safety improvements were made, and how are fire doors checked now?
- 05How would you support my relative if their mobility needs changed, given that the bedrooms are on two floors and there is no lift?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, the building and the care provided; the inspector observed three people and reviewed a sample of records. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 July 2019 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, January 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but some parts of the building and records needed improvement.
Inspectors visited on 2 November and the morning of 3 November 2016. They met all five people living there, observed care, spoke with people, staff and a health professional, and checked care records, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People appeared relaxed and happy. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, suitable training, good healthcare support and kind relationships.
There were some improvements still needed. Parts of the building looked worn, some care records contained repeated or outdated information, and timescales for some repairs were unclear. The manager took action after the inspection to arrange regular weighing for two people and to replace bedroom carpets.
People felt safe
People who could tell inspectors about their experiences said they felt safe. Other people appeared relaxed and happy with staff.
“I feel much safer here than at my last home. No harm comes to me here. No-one bullies me…I feel happy and safe.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff built positive relationships and supported privacy, dignity, communication and independence. People were involved in decisions about their daily lives.
“We could see from the staff interactions they were genuinely caring and concerned for people's well-being.” from the report
Good activities and community links
People had individual activity programmes and took part in day services, college, shopping, cinema, horse riding and other local activities.
“Each person had an individual activity programme for the week, which reflected their interests and hobbies and the level of activity was decided by the person.” from the report
Safe medicines and staffing
Medicines were administered by trained staff whose competence was checked. Inspectors also found enough staff to meet people's needs and support activities.
“MAR sheets were accurately completed and showed people always received their prescribed medicines.” from the report
Open management
People and staff said the manager was approachable and listened to them. Feedback was collected and action was taken on at least one suggested improvement.
“The registered manager had created a positive and inclusive culture at the service.” from the report
Parts of the building needed repair
needs fixingThe entrance, two bedroom carpets, window frames and laundry room flooring needed attention. The manager had identified improvements, but some work was still outstanding.
“The front entrance to the service from the street did not make a good first impression as the area looked tatty and overgrown, with peeling paint.” from the report
Care records were not always up to date
needs fixingCare plans were detailed but large, with duplicated information and some information that was out of date. The manager was reviewing and reorganising them.
“However, care records were very large, there was duplicated information and some out of date information.” from the report
Some improvement deadlines were unclear
minorAudits identified repairs and other improvements, but the report said clear timescales were not always set. Inspectors recommended an action plan with suitable deadlines.
“However no timescale for the repairs had been given.” from the report
Weight monitoring needed improvement
needs fixingTwo people could not be weighed using standing scales, and the home was not using body mass index to help monitor weight loss. After the inspection, alternative monthly weighing arrangements were made with consent.
“However, the service was unable to monitor the weight of two people as they were unable to use standing scales due to their mobility needs.” from the report
- 01Have all the repairs to the entrance, window frames, laundry room flooring and bedroom carpets now been completed?
- 02How do you make sure care plans do not contain duplicated or outdated information?
- 03How are the two people who could not use standing scales weighed now, and how are changes in weight recorded?
- 04What action plan and deadlines are in place for outstanding repairs and other improvements?
- 05How do people help choose activities, staff and daily routines?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall quality of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 January 2017 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Bexhill-on-Sea
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 19 November 2010.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
19 live-in carers within about an hour of East Sussex
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £1,000 to £1,400 a week. 13 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“When he point blank refused to go into hospital for a life saving blood transfusion she talked him through the situation and agreed to go in the ambulance with him and stayed until he was settled.”
“Una felt safe, secure and loved in her time with Debbie which is a gift that I am eternally grateful for.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.