CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Eastcotts Care Home with Nursing
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, June 2022
Eastcotts Care Home with Nursing was rated Good; inspectors found safe care and good leadership, with some mixed views about staffing levels.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 17 May 2022. One inspector and an expert by experience spoke with four people living in the home, nine relatives and seven staff. They reviewed care and medicines records, policies and quality checks.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found safeguarding arrangements, safe recruitment, medicines systems, infection control and equipment checks were in place. They also found that risks were reviewed and staff understood how to report concerns.
People and relatives were mostly positive about the care, communication and management. Staff were described as kind and approachable. Some people and relatives thought there could be more staff, but inspectors saw enough staff supporting people during the visit and found no reported negative impact.
Protection from harm
Safeguarding procedures and staff training were in place. Inspectors found that risks were identified, reduced and reviewed.
“People were protected from the risk of harm.” from the report
Safe medicines
Staff were trained to give medicines and records were completed accurately. Guidance was available for medicines prescribed only when needed.
“Staff were suitably trained to administer medication and staff completed records accurately.” from the report
Kind and compassionate care
People and relatives spoke positively about the support and the atmosphere in the home.
“Their care and compassion is amazing. I was a nurse, so I know good standards.” from the report
Open communication
Relatives said they could contact the home in different ways and were kept informed when concerns or incidents arose.
“They are very good at communicating with me and have many different ways of contacting me.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The management team used audits and other checks to monitor safety and care and identify improvements.
“Systems were in place to ensure the service was monitored and the quality of care people received was maintained.” from the report
Mixed views about staffing
minorSome people and relatives thought the home could have more staff, although inspectors saw enough staff during the visit and found no reported negative impact on people's care.
“I don't think there is enough staff, they work extremely hard and a few more staff would make it easier for them.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure there are enough staff, with the right skills, on every shift?
- 02How are medicines prescribed to be given only when needed recorded and reviewed?
- 03How would you keep my relative and visitors safe during an infection outbreak?
- 04How are relatives involved in decisions about care and kept updated if something goes wrong?
- 05How do you check that risks, fire safety and emergency evacuation plans remain up to date?
This was a planned inspection focused on Safe and Well-led; the report does not give new ratings for Effective, Caring or Responsive. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 June 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, December 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found significant improvements after the previous Inadequate rating and Special Measures, with minor recruitment checks needing attention.
This was an unannounced, planned inspection because of the previous rating. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and a visiting healthcare professional. They observed care, reviewed records and checked medicines, staff recruitment and quality monitoring.
The inspectors found significant improvements since the previous inspection. Staffing had increased, risks were assessed more clearly, medicines were managed safely, and the home was clean and well maintained. People said they felt safe and described staff as kind, respectful and available when needed.
The front-page ratings table gives the home Good in all five areas and overall. The detailed Safe section contains conflicting wording, saying the rating had improved to requires improvement, although it also says there were no breaches. The report says the home was no longer in breach of regulations and had left Special Measures.
Strong improvement
The home had made significant changes since the previous inspection. Leadership was more stable and systems for managing risks and quality had been introduced.
“At this inspection we found significant improvements had been made” from the report
Staff availability
Inspectors saw enough staff to meet people's needs. Call bells were answered quickly and staff had time to spend with people.
“Throughout the inspection we observed there were sufficient staff to meet people's care and support needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People said staff were kind, gentle and helpful. Inspectors observed warm and respectful exchanges and found that people were involved in decisions about their care.
“We saw warm and meaningful exchanges throughout the day between staff and people which were kind, considerate and respectful.” from the report
Better care planning
Care plans had been revised to give staff clearer instructions about people's wishes and needs. They were reviewed and updated regularly.
“The revised plans gave sufficient detail for staff on how to deliver care and support to people in accordance to their wishes.” from the report
Activities and stimulation
There was a regular activities programme, alongside individual activities. Inspectors saw an interactive table being used with people, including someone cared for in bed.
“There was a planned programme of regular activities, but the activities team also worked with people individually” from the report
Recruitment records
needs fixingTwo recruitment files did not contain a full employment history or photographic identification. The provider and manager took immediate action, but families should ask how these checks are now completed for every new staff member.
“In a couple of recruitment files we looked at, a full employment history was not available and photographic identification was not on file.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure every recruitment file contains a full employment history and photographic identification?
- 02How do you calculate staffing levels from people's changing needs, and how do you check that staff have enough English to communicate effectively?
- 03What regular audits and spot checks are now carried out, and what happens when they identify a problem?
- 04How are care plans kept up to date when a person's needs change, and how are changes shared with staff?
- 05Can you explain why the detailed Safe section says the rating improved to requires improvement when the ratings table gives Safe a Good rating?
This was a full inspection of the care home, including the premises and care provided, with ratings given for all five key questions; the detailed Safe section contains wording that conflicts with the ratings table. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 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 Eastcotts Care Home with Nursing
6 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- June 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Eastcotts Care Home with Nursing →
- December 2019Goodup from InadequateSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Eastcotts Care Home with Nursing →
- July 2019Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: InadequateResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- April 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 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
23 live-in carers within about an hour of Suffolk
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 £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 17 can care for a couple. 7 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
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.