CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Eastbourne House
Rated Outstanding: inspectors found the home performing exceptionally well.
What inspectors found, January 2022
Eastbourne House was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control arrangements and checks on staff practice.
This was a targeted inspection on 11 January 2022. It focused on infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements, and whether COVID-19 staffing pressures affected people.
Inspectors found the home was preventing visitors from spreading infections, using protective equipment safely, supporting testing, and following social distancing and shielding arrangements. The home was also meeting the COVID-19 vaccination requirement for non-exempt staff and visiting professionals.
The home carried out regular checks of staff skills in hand hygiene and protective equipment. It also monitored people's nutrition, hydration and skin condition during periods of isolation.
The service was inspected but not rated. This was not a full assessment of all areas of care, so the report does not provide ratings for the other four questions.
Staff infection control checks
The home regularly checked staff skills in hand hygiene and the use of protective equipment. Further training was provided when gaps were found.
“The service carried out regular checks on the staff's skills related to hand hygiene and the wearing of personal protective equipment.” from the report
Monitoring during isolation
The home monitored people's nutrition, hydration and skin condition during isolation to help ensure their needs continued to be met.
“The service monitored the residents nutrition, hydration and skin integrity during periods of isolation to ensure their needs continued to be met.” from the report
Infection prevention arrangements
Inspectors were assured about the home's arrangements for visitors, testing, protective equipment, the building's hygiene and layout, and managing outbreaks.
“We were assured the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are you managing any current staffing pressures, and what effect are they having on people's care?
- 02How often do you check staff skills in hand hygiene and the use of protective equipment?
- 03How will you monitor my relative's nutrition, hydration and skin condition if they need to isolate?
- 04What visiting arrangements and infection control measures are currently in place?
- 05How do you check that staff and visiting professionals meet the current COVID-19 vaccination requirements or have an exemption?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and staffing pressures; it was not a full inspection and the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 January 2022 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, August 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, with care records improved since the previous inspection.
Inspectors visited on 21 and 26 June 2018. The first visit was unannounced. They spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and a visiting health professional. They also observed care and checked care records, staff files, medicines, policies and safety information.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable recruitment checks, safe medicines arrangements and appropriate risk assessments. The home was clean and safety checks were up to date.
People and relatives described kind and respectful care. Care plans reflected people's choices and needs, and activities helped reduce social isolation. Records had improved since the previous inspection, when the Responsive rating was Requires Improvement because records were not always properly maintained.
The report says the home remained Good overall, matching its rating at the previous inspection in September 2015. Inspectors noted that some recent hot water temperatures were slightly above recommended guidance and this was raised with the registered manager.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe. The home had staffing, recruitment, safeguarding and risk management arrangements that inspectors considered effective.
“People who used the service told us, "Yes I feel safe here, they take good care" and "Very safe.” from the report
Respectful care
Staff supported people's dignity, privacy and independence. People's personal preferences and communication needs were recorded.
“We saw staff speaking with people in a polite and respectful manner and staff interacted with people at every opportunity.” from the report
Improved care records
Records were accurate, up to date and written around each person's needs, choices and history. This addressed the shortfall found at the previous inspection.
“At this inspection, we found care records were appropriately maintained, accurate and up to date.” from the report
Personal activities
The home arranged activities around people's interests and helped protect people from social isolation. Inspectors saw examples including trips, virtual activities and individual wishes being followed.
“The provider protected people from social isolation.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The provider used audits, action plans, surveys and meetings to monitor the service and gather views from people, relatives and staff.
“The provider had a structured approach to governance and quality assurance.” from the report
Hot water temperatures
minorSome recent hot water temperatures were slightly higher than the recommended maximum. The manager told inspectors that maintenance staff had been asked to take action.
“Some recent hot water temperatures were slightly higher than the 44 degrees maximum recommended in the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) guidance” from the report
A delayed response from head office
minorOne family member was still waiting for someone from the provider's head office to speak with them. The registered manager said they would escalate the request.
“We are still waiting from someone from the provider's head office to come and speak with us though as they said they would.” from the report
- 01What action was taken after inspectors found some hot water temperatures were above the recommended maximum?
- 02How do you make sure care records stay accurate and up to date for each person?
- 03How are activities planned around my relative's interests, abilities and wishes?
- 04How will you respond if my relative's dietary or healthcare needs change?
- 05Who should we contact if a concern needs to be escalated beyond the home?
This inspection covered all five CQC areas and found Good ratings in each; the overall rating remained Good, while Responsive improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 August 2018 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 Eastbourne House
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- August 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 13 June 2014.
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
30 live-in carers within about an hour of North Tyneside
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 £950 to £1,130 a week. 26 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Petty introduced herself to Mum every time she was caring for her and responded very quickly to Mum if she was distressed in the night.”
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.