Archived: Ocean Care

Updated 2 November 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

During our inspection, we looked at how the provider managed people’s finances due to previous information that we, and other relevant partner agencies had received about the safety of the service. Our inspection found those concerns had not been fully addressed by the provider and this put people at risk. After our inspection, we shared this information with relevant partner agencies for further review and consideration.

This inspection was announced. We gave the provider notice of the inspection site visit because it is small and we needed to be sure that the manager and people involved with the service would be available.

Inspection site visit activity took place on 6 August 2018. It included a visit to the home of a person using the service, and the office location on see the manager and office staff; and to review care records and policies and procedures. On 7 August 2018 we made phone calls to others involved in the service. The service currently supports one person living in their own home.

This inspection was completed by one inspector. As part of our inspection planning, we looked at other information held about the provider, for example, incidents or events related to the service which the provider is required by law to notify us of. We also sought feedback from the local authority and Healthwatch. Healthwatch is an independent consumer champion that gathers and represents the views of the public about health and social care services in England. We also used information the provider sent to us in the Provider Information Return. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

As part of our inspection, we spoke with two healthcare professionals who regularly visited the person, the provider and the care manager who regularly supported the person. We looked at records related to the person’s care, three staff recruitment files and other systems in place related to the quality and safety of the service. After our inspection, the provider sent us additional information we had requested as part of our inspection processes.

Updated 2 November 2018

This inspection took place on 6 August 2018 and was announced. At our last inspection in May 2016, we were not able to give an inspection rating as people using the service did not wish to speak with us so we were unable to make a judgement about the care they received. Our last inspection did not identify any breaches of legal requirements. At this inspection we rated the service, ‘Requires improvement’ overall and identified three breaches of regulations of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. It provides a service to older adults. CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided. At the time of our inspection, one person received the regulated activity of personal care from the service.

The person lived in their own home and told us they felt safe using the service. However, systems were not always clear to help the person manage their finances safely and we shared this information with the local authority after our inspection for further consideration. The person’s risks were known to their carer, (the care manager) who had supported them for a long time, and the person told us they received their medicines on time. However, records relating to this were not always accurately maintained and monitored to ensure the person always received safe support.

Systems to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service were not always effective and checks were not always carried out as planned. The provider could not evidence that staff supporting people were fit and of good character. They told us they had recruitment processes in place to help them recruit staff safely however some documentation was not available to evidence this.

The provider was aware of how to identify and report safeguarding concerns and there were sufficient numbers of staff available to care for the person.

The person made their own choices about their care and told us their choices were respected. The person told us they were satisfied with their care. They were supported to access further healthcare support as needed and to have meals of their preference. The care manager felt supported in their role and was familiar with the person’s needs. The provider had arranged some guidance and training for staff, however the provider did not always keep track of staff training plans and requirements.

The person told us their carer was kind and caring, and we saw they had a good rapport. The care manager understood how to help promote the person’s dignity. The person told us they felt able to complain and the provider had a system in place to ensure complaints would be addressed. However, the person was not supported to be involved in discussions and decisions about their care as far as possible. Care plans did not always fully reflect the person’s choices and support needs.

We received positive feedback about the service and the person told us they were happy with their care. The provider referred to some current good practice guidelines and understood their responsibilities to the Commission.

You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.