CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Regard Partnership Limited - Eastbourne Road
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found safeguarding systems, risk assessments, enough staff, safe recruitment and safe medicines management. They noted that staff physical intervention training was not to the required standard and that cleaning schedules were not always completed.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed before moving in. Staff had training and supervision, people had choices about food and drink, and the home worked with health professionals.
- Caring?
- Good
- People said staff were kind and treated them well. Staff supported privacy, dignity, independence, equality and involvement in decisions.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and people had access to community activities, holidays, education and work. Some inconsistencies were found in care plans and the home said these would be addressed.
- Well-led?
- Good
- There was a registered manager, regular monitoring and audits, and good communication with staff and relatives. People, relatives and staff were asked for their views.
What inspectors found, December 2019
The Regard Partnership Limited - Eastbourne Road is rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, with some records and training needing improvement.
This was an unannounced, planned inspection on 20 November 2019. One inspector spoke with three people using the home and six staff, observed care, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, suitable care plans, kind support and a range of activities. People were supported to make choices and develop independence.
There were some areas to improve. The whistleblowing policy did not fully explain staff's right to report concerns outside the home. Staff training on physical intervention was below the required standard, cleaning records were not always completed, and some care plans contained inconsistencies.
The overall Good rating was unchanged from the previous inspection, published on 6 June 2017. Good means inspectors found the service was consistently managed and provided good outcomes, but it does not mean every part was perfect.
Enough staff
People and staff said there were enough staff. Inspectors saw that staff were not rushed and could support people as needed.
“People and staff told us there were enough staff at the service to meet people's needs.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored securely and administration records were checked and found to be up to date.
“Medicine administration records were maintained which contained details of each medicine to be given. We checked these and found them to be up to date.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People said staff treated them well. Inspectors saw friendly and respectful interactions, with support for privacy and independence.
“We observed staff interacting with people in a friendly and respectful manner, and people were seen to be relaxed and at ease in the company of staff.” from the report
Activities and independence
People were supported to take part in community activities, education, voluntary work, holidays and activities at the home.
“People were supported to access community facilities. On the day of inspection, a person told us, "We are going shopping" and we saw this happened.” from the report
Whistleblowing policy
needs fixingThe policy did not clearly say that staff could report concerns to outside agencies where appropriate. The home said it would revise the policy after the inspection.
“However, this did not make clear that staff had the right to whistle blow to outside agencies where appropriate.” from the report
Physical intervention training
seriousStaff had basic training, but inspectors said it was not to the required standard. The home said all staff would receive the required training by 5 December 2019.
“Staff had received basic training on this but not to the required standard.” from the report
Cleaning records
minorCleaning schedules were in place but were not always completed. Inspectors said the premises were visibly clean on the inspection day.
“Cleaning schedules were in place setting out what areas were to be cleaned and when. However, these had not always been completed.” from the report
Care plan accuracy
needs fixingSome care plans contained inconsistent information. The registered manager said staff would be asked to correct these issues.
“However, we did find some inconsistencies in people's care plans.” from the report
- 01Has all staff training on physical intervention now been completed to the required standard?
- 02Is the revised whistleblowing policy now in place, and does it explain how staff can report concerns outside the home?
- 03How do managers check that cleaning schedules are completed consistently?
- 04How are care plans checked and corrected when information is inconsistent?
- 05What Makaton training did staff receive after some staff said they needed more help with communication?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, using discussions, observations and records; the home and the care provided were both looked at. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 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.
What inspectors found, June 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some staff saying induction and training could be more detailed.
This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection on 24 April 2017. One inspector observed care, spoke with people, staff and managers, and reviewed care plans, risk assessments, recruitment records, audits and other records.
The home supported nine adults with learning disabilities and complex needs. Inspectors found enough safely recruited staff, well-managed risks, safe medicines, suitable food and good access to health care.
People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff knew people well, supported their communication and helped them take part in activities and develop independence.
The overall rating was Good, and all five areas were rated Good. The service remained Good since the previous inspection. A new acting manager had been in post for seven weeks and had applied to become registered.
Safe staffing and medicines
There were enough staff to meet people's needs, and medicines were stored, given and disposed of safely.
“There were enough staff to keep people safe and meet their needs.” from the report
Kind, respectful care
Inspectors saw a calm atmosphere and positive relationships. Staff respected people's privacy, dignity and choices.
“During our inspection we observed people were treated with kindness and compassion.” from the report
Personalised support
Staff knew people's communication, routines and interests. Support plans included detailed guidance for individual needs and behaviour that could challenge others.
“The records contained detailed information and guidance for staff about people's routines, and the support they required to meet their individual needs.” from the report
Activities and independence
People were supported to take part in activities they chose and to build everyday skills, including cooking, shopping and housework.
“It was important to ensure people were given opportunities to develop their skills in housework, cooking, shopping and basic life skills.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The acting manager and wider organisation carried out regular checks on medicines, care plans, cleanliness, health and safety and previous recommendations.
“The organisation continued to have good quality monitoring systems in place which included an annual health and safety audit.” from the report
Induction detail
minorOne staff member felt the induction checklist needed more detail. They said they had learned some things as they went along, although the report says newer staff had received more detail.
“A staff member told us the checklist was good but they would have liked more detail in each area.” from the report
Training relevance
minorOne staff member did not think a training course had added new knowledge. The acting manager said they would consider whether it was suitable and might look for more appropriate training.
“A staff member told us that although the content was good, they did not think they had learned anything new from this training” from the report
- 01How do you make sure new staff receive the detailed induction needed to support my relative?
- 02What changes have been made to ensure training is relevant to people's learning disabilities and complex needs?
- 03How will the management arrangements work while the acting manager's registration application is being considered?
- 04How would you support my relative's communication, choices and independence day to day?
- 05How do you manage and review support plans for behaviour that could challenge others?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, and all five ratings were Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 June 2017 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 The Regard Partnership Limited - Eastbourne Road
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at The Regard Partnership Limited - Eastbourne Road →
- June 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at The Regard Partnership Limited - Eastbourne Road →
- June 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 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
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.