CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Arundel Road
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that individual risks were clearly assessed and that staff understood how to support people safely. Medicines were managed safely, although the home had previously experienced medicine errors during staff training, which staff said had been addressed.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not reviewed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not reviewed in this targeted inspection, although inspectors observed staff speaking to people with kindness and respect.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not reviewed in this targeted inspection. The report does describe personalised activities and support focused on people's individual goals.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found positive changes after a new manager was appointed and registered in June 2020. Staff and relatives described improved communication, leadership and outcomes for people.
What inspectors found, December 2020
Eastbourne & District Mencap - Arundel Road: Inspected but not rated; inspectors found safe, personalised care and positive leadership, but noted challenges with isolation during a COVID-19 outbreak.
This was a targeted inspection on 30 November 2020. Inspectors checked concerns about risk and medicines management, and also looked at infection control. They observed care, reviewed records, spoke with the manager and five staff, and later spoke with seven relatives.
Inspectors found that risks were assessed and managed safely. Medicines were handled safely, staff understood people's seizure guidance, and infection control arrangements were generally in place. The home used consistent staff assignments to support people and reduce contact between staff.
The inspection found positive changes in leadership and a strong focus on people's independence, dignity and quality of life. However, the inspection did not review the full service. Safe and well-led were marked 'Inspected but not rated', and the previous overall rating of Good remained unchanged.
Managing individual risks
People's risks were recorded clearly, and staff knew how to support them while using the least restrictive approach. Inspectors saw staff following individual guidance.
“Risks to people were assessed and detailed in people's support plans.” from the report
Medicines safety
Only trained and checked staff gave medicines. Records showed when medicines were given, stock was monitored, and guidance covered refused or emergency medicines.
“There were systems in place to ensure medicines were ordered, stored, given and disposed of safely.” from the report
Person-centred support
The home supported people to make choices, personalise their rooms and take part in daily life. Activities were designed around each person.
“Activities at the home were designed around each individual and achievements were celebrated.” from the report
Positive leadership
Inspectors heard that leadership had improved communication, staff support and the focus on people's quality of life. Staff said they felt able to raise concerns.
“Staff and relatives spoke highly of the registered manager and the impact he made on the people's care.” from the report
Isolation during an outbreak
needs fixingThe manager acknowledged that it would be difficult to help people isolate if an infection outbreak occurred because of their understanding of the situation. CQC signposted the provider to resources to improve its approach.
“The registered manager acknowledged that in the event of an outbreak, it would be very difficult to support people to isolate due to their understanding of the situation.” from the report
- 01What specific plan would you use to support each person to isolate during an infection outbreak?
- 02How do you check that staff remain competent to give medicines, including emergency seizure medicines?
- 03How would you record emergency medicines when they leave the home with a person?
- 04How does the 'flow' system make sure each person's personal care, medicines, meals and activities remain consistent?
- 05What changes have been made since the increased staff turnover mentioned in the report?
This was a targeted inspection of specific concerns about risk and medicines management, with infection control also reviewed; it did not assess the whole service and did not change the previous ratings. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 December 2020 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, December 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, but staffing shortages meant some activities were missed.
This was an unannounced inspection on 24 and 26 September 2019. One inspector spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff. They also observed care and checked care, medicine, staff and management records.
The home supported eight people with learning disabilities, including autism, and related physical, sensory disabilities or dementia. Inspectors found people were treated with kindness and respect. Staff understood people's communication, choices and individual needs well.
People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Medicines, risk assessments, equipment, food and healthcare support were well managed. The home also supported people to choose activities, maintain relationships and be as independent as possible.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was the same overall rating as at the previous inspection, published in March 2017.
Kind and respectful support
Inspectors saw relaxed, friendly communication. Staff protected people's dignity and privacy and understood their individual preferences.
“People were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to choose where they spent time, what they ate and which activities they joined. Staff used the least restrictive approach possible.
“The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice, control, independence and inclusion.” from the report
Staff knew people well
Staff recognised people's non-verbal communication and understood their health, support and personal needs. Relatives were involved in care reviews.
“Staff knew people very well; they spoke knowledgeably about the care and support people wanted and were confident their assistance enabled people to be as independent as possible.” from the report
Safe medicines systems
Inspectors found medicines were ordered, stored, given and recorded safely. The medicine records checked were complete.
“The MAR we looked were complete with no errors.” from the report
Activities and family contact
People were supported to take part in activities at home and in the community, and to keep in touch with relatives.
“Relatives said their family members were supported to do activities in the home or go into the community.” from the report
Shortage of permanent staff
needs fixingThe home relied too much on agency staff because it had not recruited enough permanent staff. Inspectors found this sometimes meant people missed activities they wanted to do.
“Although there was feedback from relatives and staff that there were not enough permanent staff, there was an overreliance on agency staff and this meant people missed out on some activities.” from the report
Shower room refurbishment
minorA shower room needed complete refurbishment after a flood. The manager said this would be included in the yearly improvement plan.
“Some rooms had been repainted and a shower room needed to be completely refurbished following a flood.” from the report
- 01How many permanent staff work at the home now, and has the reliance on agency staff reduced?
- 02How do you make sure people still attend their chosen activities when permanent staff are unavailable?
- 03Was the shower room refurbishment completed, and are there any other outstanding improvement works?
- 04Are the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications and reviews now up to date?
- 05How are people's non-verbal communication and personal choices recorded and shared with new or agency staff?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including both the care provided and the premises. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 December 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.
Every inspection of Arundel Road
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not ratedWell-led: Inspected but not rated
- December 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 4 January 2011.
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.