CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Earlsfield Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, appropriate risk assessments and safe medicines arrangements. Infection prevention measures, including COVID-19 controls, were also found to be suitable.
- Effective?
- Good
- People’s needs were assessed before admission and staff had training and support. Inspectors found good support with nutrition, healthcare, consent and people’s individual needs, although some training records had gaps.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors saw people being treated with dignity, involved in choices and supported to maintain independence and family contact.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people’s needs, preferences and communication needs. The home provided activities, supported relationships and gave compassionate end-of-life care, but there was little evidence that complaints led to shared learning.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- A new management team had recently taken over, but communication and quality systems were not fully established. Complaints and accident information were recorded but were not yet being used consistently to improve the service.
What inspectors found, September 2021
Rated Good overall, but Well-led Requires Improvement because communication and quality systems were not yet established.
This was the home’s first inspection. It was unannounced and included visits on 17 and 27 August 2021. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and a visiting professional. They observed care and checked care records, medicines, recruitment, training, staffing and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines arrangements, suitable risk assessments and good infection control. People were treated kindly, involved in decisions and supported with personalised care, activities and contact with relatives.
Well-led was rated Requires Improvement. A new management team was settling in, but staff communication was not reliable and the home was not yet using complaints and accident information well enough to identify improvements. The overall rating was Good, but the report says the management and quality systems needed further development.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff on each shift to meet people’s needs. Recruitment checks were also completed before staff started work.
“There were enough staff working each shift to ensure people's needs were met.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People were treated with kindness and respect. Staff understood people’s individual needs and supported their dignity and independence.
“People were treated with kindness and respect. Staff spoke respectfully to people and showed a good awareness of people's individual needs and preferences.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people’s preferences, communication needs and daily choices. People and relatives said staff knew them well.
“The care plans were individual and reflected a person-centred approach to care.” from the report
Activities and family contact
The home offered varied activities and helped people maintain contact with relatives through visits and technology.
“There was a full activities programme that was varied to suit people's individual needs.” from the report
Safe infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home followed COVID-19 infection control guidance, including testing, PPE, visiting arrangements and hygiene measures.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Communication was unreliable
needs fixingStaff said information was not always passed on, and this had led to people missing appointments. The new management team had started making changes, but the systems were not yet fully established.
“Information is not always passed on, this causes problems and has led to people missing appointments.” from the report
Limited learning from incidents and complaints
needs fixingThe home recorded accidents, incidents and complaints, but inspectors found little evidence that this information was reviewed for patterns or used to improve the service.
“There was no evidence that information generated from these was used to identify themes or trends.” from the report
Training records needed attention
needs fixingSome staff training records showed gaps after staff changes. Medicine competency assessments had not been completed for all staff, although management addressed this immediately.
“There had been a number of staff changes over the past couple of months and has led to some gaps on the training records identifying non completion.” from the report
Food was not always well received
minorInspectors received complaints about the food on the inspection day. Management changed the menu immediately, and relatives later said the food had improved.
“On the day of the inspection the food was not well received, and complaints were made.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to communication since the inspection, and how do you make sure appointments are not missed?
- 02How are accidents and incidents now reviewed for patterns and used to change care?
- 03How are complaints recorded, reviewed and shared with staff so that they lead to improvements?
- 04Have all staff completed their required training and medicine competency assessments?
- 05What feedback have people given about the food since the menu and chef changes?
This was an unannounced first inspection covering all five CQC questions, including infection prevention and control measures; there were no previous ratings to carry over. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 September 2021 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 Earlsfield Court
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- September 2021Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 February 2020.
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.