Archived: Ocean Hill Lodge Residential Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

At our last inspection we identified a breach of regulations relating to person centred care. The service remained in breach of this regulation.

Care was not always arranged to meet people’s needs and preferences. People did not have access to meaningful engagement. Staff did not feel well-supported or valued.

This service scored 45 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity.

People were not being supported to shower regularly. Only 4 people had been supported to have a shower in the 6 weeks prior to the inspection. At our previous inspection we had noted people were not being offered baths. Staff had told us the bathrooms were dated and not fit for purpose. The registered manager had assured us they were planning on updating bathrooms. This had not happened. Towels were worn and frayed and did not respect people’s dignity. Following the inspection the registered manager told us they had ordered new towels.

Documents containing personal and sensitive information were left on a table in a communal area.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

People had little to occupy them on a day-to-day basis. Staff did not have time to offer anything other than task-based care and there was no activity co-ordinator. Occasionally entertainers visited but this was not a regular occurrence. On the second day of the inspection visit a poster on the lounge door stated there would be gentle exercises in the afternoon. This did not happen. People who were not cared for in bed spent the day sitting in chairs arranged round the room, they ate their meals in the same chairs and most of them only moved when using the bathroom.

Meals were given to people in their chairs in the lounge area. Due to the limited space people were not able to help themselves to any condiments and relied on staff offering these to them.

People’s relatives told us they could visit when they wanted to and were always welcome.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

People, particularly those with reduced mobility, were not supported to be independent. Staff did not ask people how or where they wanted to spend their time, assuming people would remain in the lounge throughout the day. We did not see people being encouraged to participate in any aspect of the running of the service such as setting tables, folding laundry etc. Although staff were kind in their approach, we found there was culture of low expectations for people.

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff were not effectively deployed to enable them to respond to people’s immediate needs. On the first day of the inspection 1 member of staff was with 9 people in the lounge at lunch time. When one person needed individual attention, they responded well and supported the person with consideration, patience and kindness. However, this meant there were no other staff available to support anyone else if they had requested it.

On the second day of the inspection there were 2 members of staff supporting people during the lunch period. However, at our previous inspection we had observed only 1 member of staff being allocated to oversee the lounge during lunch. We were not confident the change to how staff were deployed at mealtimes would be continued.

The provider did not care about or promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

Staff told us they did not always feel well supported or feel their well-being was valued by the provider.

The registered manager did not recognise the importance of pay information for staff and the impact not having this information might have on them.