This inspection was unannounced and took place on 11, 26 and 30 October 2017. The staff and registered provider did not know that we would be visiting.

This was the first inspection since the new provider registered to operate this service.

Eastbourne Care Home provides care and accommodation for up to 42 people. It provides care to 24 people with nursing needs on the first floor and two people with nursing needs on the ground floor. It has a separate unit on the ground floor with 15 intermediate care places that are funded by the local Clinical Commissioning Group. These places are for people who require a short rehabilitation service to recover following an illness or injury. On the day of our inspection there were 35 people using the service.

The registered manager had been in post since the service was registered in September 2016. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People were happy and told us they felt safe. The staff had a clear understanding of safeguarding and ensured that action was taken if concerns arose about the way people were supported. Staff ensured any risks were closely managed. Following the purchase of the service we found that the registered manager and provider had consistently worked to drive improvements within the service.

People who used the service and the staff we spoke with told us that there were enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs. The management team closely considered people’s needs and ensured sufficient staff were on duty each day and night.

Effective recruitment and selection procedures were in place and we saw that appropriate vetting checks had been undertaken before staff began work. The checks included obtaining references from previous employers to show staff employed were safe to work with vulnerable people.

We reviewed the systems for the management of medicines and found that people received their medicines safely. Medicines were closely managed and this ensured people received their medication exactly as prescribed.

The service was being totally refurbished and action was taken to ensure the building and equipment was maintained to a satisfactory standard. When issues were raised with the maintenance person these were dealt with straight away.

People’s care plans were tailored for them as individuals but the lack of a comprehensive assessment led staff to create numerous and often repetitive care plans. People were cared for by staff who knew them really well and understood how to support them.

Where people had difficulty making decisions we saw that staff gently supported them to work out what they felt was best. Staff understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and had appropriately requested Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard (DoLS) authorisations. DoLS authorisations are used for people who need to be deprived of their liberty lawfully in their best interests to maintain their health and safety.

We observed that staff had developed very positive relationships with the people who used the service. The interactions between people and staff were jovial and supportive. Staff were kind and respectful and we saw that they were aware of how to respect people’s privacy and dignity. Staff sensitively supported people to deal with their personal care needs. People felt they would receive support from staff when needed. We found that a range of stimulating and engaging activities were provided at the service.

Sufficient staff were on duty to meet people’s needs and those receiving intermediate care were also supported by physiotherapists and occupational therapists. Staff across the home used the advice they provided to improve the care for all