Eastside House

The following is CQC's published account of its assessment, published 15 April 2026. References to “we” mean CQC. It describes findings at that time.

Date of Assessment: 21 January to 13 February 2026. Eastside House is a residential care home providing accommodation and personal care for up to 16 older adults, mainly people living with dementia.

The provider had a history of breaches in safe care and treatment and good governance, and despite some progress, this assessment identified further shortfalls demonstrating these breaches have continued.

The service did not consistently operate safely. Staff attempted to follow risk processes, but gaps in fire safety, medicines oversight and behaviour monitoring showed systems were not always effective or reliably applied. Although the environment was generally clean and staff updated plans when prompted, important elements of environmental and personal safety oversight were missed, including outdated evacuation information and risks not being identified through internal checks.

Staff delivered aspects of effective care, but inconsistent assessments and gaps in behavioural monitoring and medicines guidance reduced the reliability of clinical oversight. Audit and monitoring systems did not consistently identify the issues found during this assessment.

Staff treated people with kindness and respect. They showed genuine interest in people’s histories, preferences and routines. Their interactions were warm, personalised and engaging. The atmosphere remained calm and homely, and people appeared comfortable and well cared for.

The service responded well to people’s needs and preferences. Staff adapted care when health needs changed and updated plans accordingly. Activities reflected people’s interests, and staff supported cultural celebrations and special events. People contributed to decisions through resident meetings, and relatives reported positive communication.

but governance systems were not consistently effective. Oversight processes did not identify weaknesses in fire safety, medicines management or risk assessment, indicating ongoing governance gaps. Although audits occurred, they did not detect the concerns identified during this assessment, showing that oversight mechanisms were not sufficiently robust. Staff understood reporting structures, and feedback from relatives and professionals remained consistently positive.