CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Peasmarsh Place
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were assessed and managed, staffing was sufficient, recruitment checks were completed, medicines were handled safely and infection controls were in place.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not rated in this inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not rated in this inspection, although people and relatives described staff as kind, friendly and respectful.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not rated in this inspection. The report says care was adjusted to people's changing needs and choices.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found a positive team culture, approachable managers, regular feedback systems and audits that were used to identify improvements.
What inspectors found, July 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found people were safe and well cared for, with effective management and infection controls.
This was an unannounced inspection on 23 June 2022. One inspector spoke with people, staff, a relative and a visiting professional. They observed care and checked care, medicines, recruitment, safety and management records.
The home was rated Good overall, with Good ratings for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, suitable risk assessments and safe medicines arrangements. The home was also taking steps to prevent and manage COVID-19 infections.
People and relatives said they felt safe and well cared for. Inspectors found an open culture, regular opportunities for people and staff to share their views, and managers who were working to improve the service.
The previous inspection rating was also Good, published on 24 May 2019. This inspection only gave ratings for Safe and Well-led. No ratings were given for Effective, Caring or Responsive.
People felt safe
People and relatives told inspectors that they felt safe and well looked after. Staff understood how to recognise and report abuse.
“A relative said, "She is absolutely safe here, she is well looked after and I don't worry about her.” from the report
Risks were managed
The home assessed risks such as falls, poor nutrition, skin damage and emergency evacuation. Staff reviewed incidents and changed equipment or care when needed.
“Risks to people were assessed, identified and managed.” from the report
Safe medicines practice
Only trained staff who had been assessed as competent administered medicines. Inspectors saw medicines being given safely and records being completed.
“Staff practice observed demonstrated staff followed best practice ensuring people took their medicines safely with records completed afterwards.” from the report
Positive management
Inspectors found an open culture and managers who worked alongside staff. People, relatives and professionals gave positive feedback about the leadership.
“There was a positive team spirit and culture in the service.” from the report
Lift and garden access
minorThe manager was aware of problems with the passenger lift and access to the garden and grounds. The report says work was under way, but it does not confirm that these issues were fully resolved.
“This included problems with the passenger lift and access to the garden and grounds.” from the report
Staff vacancies
minorThere had been some staff vacancies. These were covered by regular agency staff while recruitment continued.
“There had been some staff vacancies, and these had been covered by regular agency staff.” from the report
- 01Have the problems with the passenger lift now been fixed?
- 02Can residents currently access the garden and grounds easily and safely?
- 03How many staff vacancies remain, and how often are agency staff used?
- 04How does the home make sure staffing levels change when residents need support from two staff members?
- 05What changes have been made since the inspection to improve care and management?
This inspection focused on Safe and Well-led, including infection prevention and control; no ratings were given for Effective, Caring or Responsive. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 July 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, May 2019
Rated Good in all five areas; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with medicine records improved after earlier recording problems.
This was an unannounced inspection on 08 April 2019 by one inspector. The inspector reviewed care plans, risk assessments, medicine records, accident and complaint records, audits and recruitment records. They also spoke with people living at the home, staff and managers, and observed the service.
The home was rated Good overall and Good for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe, had enough staff and were treated with kindness and respect. Inspectors found that risks were assessed, medicines were managed safely, care was personalised and people had access to activities and health care.
Inspectors found that staff had not always completed medicine records accurately. The home introduced a new template and refresher training, which improved record keeping. The home had also been rated Good at the previous inspection, published on 18 October 2016.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe. Staff understood safeguarding and risks to people's health, welfare and the building were assessed and managed.
“People told us that they felt safe living at the service.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors observed respectful care. Staff knew people's lives, preferences and routines, and supported privacy, dignity and independence.
“We observed people being treated with dignity and respect.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people's choices and needs, and were reviewed with them. People could choose activities, meals and how to spend their time.
“Staff knew people well including their preferences, choices, likes / dislikes and these were recorded in their care plans.” from the report
Good leadership and checks
The home had quality checks, gathered feedback and investigated accidents and incidents to identify lessons and improve care.
“The service had a robust quality assurance system in place to ensure they continuously made improvements to the service.” from the report
Medicine records had not always been accurate
needs fixingInspectors found that staff had not always completed medicine records accurately. The home introduced a new template and refresher training, which led to better record keeping.
“They had identified staff were not always completing medicine records accurately.” from the report
- 01How do you check that medicine records are completed accurately now?
- 02What activities and routines would be available for my relative, based on their interests and abilities?
- 03How would you involve my relative and our family in reviewing their care plan?
- 04How would you support my relative with health appointments, changing health needs or mobility?
- 05How would you record and respond to my relative's end of life wishes?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and both the premises and care provided; all five ratings were Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 May 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 Peasmarsh Place
3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 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.