CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Eastridge Manor EMI Nursing and Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks such as falls, mobility problems and skin damage were assessed and managed. Medicines, staffing, recruitment and infection control were also found to be safe.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's food, drink and health needs were assessed and monitored. Staff had relevant training, worked with health professionals and followed the Mental Capacity Act and deprivation of liberty requirements.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors observed kind, patient and respectful care, with people offered choices and supported to express their views.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and included people's preferences, interests and communication needs. Activities and social contact were provided, and this rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Quality checks were effective and used to make improvements. However, there was no registered manager in post at the time, with management oversight provided by the Regional Operations Manager.
What inspectors found, September 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with no registered manager in post at the time.
Inspectors visited unannounced on 28 and 30 June 2022. They spoke with seven people living at the home, four relatives and nine staff. They reviewed care and medicine records, staff files and records about how the home was managed.
People told inspectors they felt safe and were happy with the care. Inspectors found that risks were assessed, medicines were managed safely, staffing levels met people's needs and infection control arrangements were effective. People were supported with food, drink, health appointments and decisions about their care.
Inspectors saw kind and respectful interactions. Care plans reflected people's needs, preferences and communication styles. Activities and social contact were provided, and complaints and feedback were handled appropriately.
The overall rating was Good, with Good ratings in all five areas. The Responsive rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection in 2018. The inspection was partly prompted by concerns about nutrition and hydration, but inspectors found no evidence that people were at risk of harm from this.
People felt safe
People and relatives said they felt safe. Inspectors found that staff understood safeguarding and that risks were reviewed and managed.
“People told us they felt safe living at the home, and relatives said their felt that their loved ones were safely cared for.” from the report
Safe medicines
Staff were trained and checked as competent. Medicines were stored safely and records showed they were given as prescribed.
“Medication Administration Records (MAR) showed people received their medicines as prescribed and these records were completed accurately.” from the report
Kind care
People and relatives were consistently positive about staff. Inspectors saw staff offering reassurance, patience and respectful support.
“People and their relatives were consistently positive about the caring attitude of staff.” from the report
Personalised activities
Activities and social contact reflected people's interests and preferences. Inspectors saw individual and group activities taking place.
“People had social stimulation care plans in place that detailed what activities were personal to them and how staff could support them with these.” from the report
Effective quality checks
The home used audits to monitor care, medicines, falls, incidents and activities. These checks led to changes when people's support needed to improve.
“Quality assurance systems were effective in ensuring the quality of the care and support provided.” from the report
No registered manager
needs fixingThere was no registered manager in post when inspectors visited. The home was being overseen by a regional manager, and people, staff and relatives had been told about this arrangement.
“At the time of our inspection there was not a registered manager in post.” from the report
- 01Who is currently responsible for managing the home, and when will a registered manager be in post?
- 02How will you assess and monitor my relative's nutrition, hydration and weight?
- 03How would you support my relative's specific dementia, nursing or end of life care needs?
- 04What activities and social contact would be available based on my relative's interests and communication needs?
- 05How are relatives involved in care reviews, resident meetings and decisions made in their relative's best interests?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, including both the premises and the care provided; it was partly prompted by concerns about nutrition and hydration. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 September 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, October 2018
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind care, but responsiveness during meals needed improvement.
This was a comprehensive, unannounced inspection on 12 June 2018. Inspectors observed care, spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked care records, medicines records, staff files, complaints and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall and was also rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led. People generally felt safe, received their medicines properly, had their health needs supported, and were treated with kindness and respect.
The Responsive rating was Requires Improvement. Inspectors saw that people did not always receive enough individual attention during meals and activities. Some people had to wait for help, and there were missed chances to support someone who was trying to ask for a drink.
The overall Good rating means the inspectors found the service generally met people's needs, with no serious risks identified. However, the home needed to improve how consistently it provided personalised support, especially at mealtimes.
Safety and risk management
Risks such as falls, mobility needs and skin damage were assessed and had plans to guide staff. Incidents were reviewed and used to reduce the chance of them happening again.
“Risks to people had been identified and assessed. There were comprehensive plans in place to guide staff in how to provide care safely.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and were seen offering gentle, reassuring support. People's privacy, dignity and communication needs were taken seriously.
“Throughout the inspection we observed staff interacting with people in a kind and gentle way.” from the report
Support for individual needs
Care plans included people's backgrounds, preferences and dementia or mental health needs. Staff supported individual interests and provided daily activities.
“People and their relatives had been involved in developing care plans which included details of the person's diverse needs, their background, social and religious needs and preferences.” from the report
Strong management checks
The home had regular checks on care plans, risks, fire safety, infection control and wound care. The findings were used to change care and procedures.
“Clear governance arrangements were in place, with good management oversight to identify shortfalls and drive improvements.” from the report
Inconsistent support at mealtimes
needs fixingInspectors saw people being moved around, waiting for help and missing opportunities for staff interaction. One person repeatedly raised an empty cup but did not receive the support they appeared to be seeking.
“There were numerous missed engagement opportunities from staff, while the person raised an empty cup to his lips on twenty occasions, indicating that they wished to have staff support to get them a drink.” from the report
- 01What changes were made to mealtime arrangements after inspectors identified people waiting for help and missed engagement opportunities?
- 02How do staff make sure every person receives enough support and interaction during meals and activities?
- 03How are people's food preferences checked and acted on when they dislike something on their plate?
- 04How do you monitor whether people with dementia or communication difficulties are able to ask for drinks and other support?
- 05How are families involved in reviewing care plans and checking that individual preferences are being followed?
This was a comprehensive, unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, and the ratings remained Good overall from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 October 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 Eastridge Manor EMI Nursing and Residential Home
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- September 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Eastridge Manor EMI Nursing and Residential Home →
- October 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Eastridge Manor EMI Nursing and Residential Home →
- October 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2015
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 27 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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of West 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 £1,020 to £1,170 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
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.