CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Eastcliffe
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems and appropriate safeguarding arrangements, although some recruitment records and staffing allocation records needed improvement.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected in this report. Its previous rating was used to calculate the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected in this report. Its previous rating was used to calculate the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected in this report. Its previous rating was used to calculate the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Leadership and management systems were judged to be good. The home reviewed incidents and care systems, worked with other agencies and promoted a person-centred culture, although some relatives wanted better communication.
What inspectors found, January 2024
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, person-centred care and good leadership, with some records and family communication needing improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection over four days in December 2023. Inspectors met seven people, contacted nine relatives, spoke with staff and other professionals, and checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe improved from Requires Improvement at the previous rated inspection. Well-led remained Good. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, safeguarding systems and care that promoted people's choices, independence and wellbeing.
There were some areas to improve. Recruitment files had gaps, records did not always clearly show one-to-one and two-to-one staffing, and some relatives wanted better communication. The home was taking action on these points.
This report only assesses Safe and Well-led. The other areas were not inspected, so their previous ratings were used when calculating the overall rating.
People's safety
People and relatives said they felt safe. Staff understood safeguarding and how to reduce risks of avoidable harm.
“People and relatives confirmed they felt safe using the service.” from the report
Choice and independence
Staff supported people to make decisions, build on their strengths and pursue their goals. Care was described as person-centred.
“People were supported to have maximum possible choice, control and independence.” from the report
Safe medicines
Staff were trained and assessed as competent. Checks helped ensure medicines were recorded and given correctly.
“People's medicines were managed in a safe manner.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors found that staff provided compassionate care and respected people's privacy, dignity and individual needs.
“People received kind and compassionate care.” from the report
Learning and oversight
The registered manager reviewed incidents, checked how the service operated and acted when improvements were needed.
“The registered manager critically reviewed the operation of the service and actively made changes to the improve the service, as and when these were needed.” from the report
Recruitment records
needs fixingSome staff files did not show that employment histories had been fully explored, what DBS evidence had been requested or that current photographs were held. Management was working to address these gaps.
“However, there were some gaps such as evidence to demonstrate employment histories had been fully explored, what DBS evidence had been requested and current photographs.” from the report
Staffing allocation records
needs fixingThere were enough staff, but records did not clearly show the one-to-one and two-to-one support people received. The home was asked to improve this.
“We discussed the need to ensure a clear record of the allocation of 1:1 and 2:1 staffing for people was maintained.” from the report
Communication with families
minorSome relatives felt they were not kept informed enough and wanted more contact from the home. Management was taking action to involve families more in care discussions.
“Some relatives felt communication with them could be improved.” from the report
- 01How have you closed the gaps in staff recruitment records, including employment histories, DBS evidence and current photographs?
- 02How do you now record the one-to-one and two-to-one staffing each person receives?
- 03How will you keep relatives updated about staff changes and their family member's care?
- 04How do you involve families in discussions about changes to a person's care and support needs?
- 05What progress has been made in arranging same-gender staff where this is important to a person?
This focused inspection covered Safe and Well-led only; the other ratings were carried over from the previous rated inspection when calculating the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 January 2024 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, March 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control, safe visiting arrangements and measures to manage COVID-19 staffing pressures.
This was a targeted, announced inspection on 17 February 2022. It focused on infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and the effect of COVID-19-related staffing pressures.
Inspectors found the home was clean and that extra cleaning was taking place. Staff had suitable supplies of personal protective equipment, had been trained to use it, and people and staff took part in regular testing.
The home supported visits in line with government guidance. Inspectors were assured about infection control, safe admissions, PPE use, testing, cleaning, outbreak management and the infection control policy.
The home was not given an overall quality rating. The Safe question was recorded as inspected but not rated, and this inspection did not assess the other four questions.
Clean environment
The home was clean, with extra cleaning of frequently touched surfaces.
“The environment was clean. Additional cleaning was taking place, including of frequently touched surfaces.” from the report
PPE and staff training
Staff had suitable PPE supplies and training in using PPE safely.
“Staff wore appropriate PPE and there were sufficient supplies.” from the report
Family visits
People were supported to stay in contact with relatives through visits and technology, following government guidance.
“People and their relatives were supported to keep in contact using a range of technology as well as visits to the home, in line with government guidance.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What measures are currently being used to manage any COVID-19-related staffing pressures?
- 02How are you currently providing visits, including visits in communal areas, residents' rooms or the sheltered garden area?
- 03How often are people and staff tested, and what happens if someone has a positive result?
- 04How do you make sure there is always enough PPE and that staff remain trained to use it?
- 05How do you prevent and manage any infection outbreaks at the home?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it did not assess the other four CQC questions and the service was not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 March 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.
Every inspection of Eastcliffe
4 rated inspections over 9 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2024Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- August 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- July 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 December 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
46 live-in carers within about an hour of Sunderland
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 £1,210 a week. 42 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.