Archived: Ocean Hill Lodge Residential Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement.

At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

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

People’s individual needs were not taken into account when providing information. Care plans were not updated when people’s needs changed. People and their representatives were not involved in the development of care plans.

This service scored 47 (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 always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People were not in control of their day to day lives. There were no opportunities to make choices about what to do, and preferred routines were not valued. For example, one person told us they had resigned themselves to not having a bath saying; “I don’t suppose I’ll ever have a bath again.”

Staff still did not have time to spend with people and ensure they were able to participate in meaningful activities. However, they knew what mattered to people and, when they were able, supported people in line with their wishes. For example, there had been no hairdresser visiting Ocean Hill Lodge since our previous inspection. One person told us; “Last night the night staff said if I got up before she finished her shift, she would wash my hair and she did; That was so kind of her.”

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

A relative told us they were concerned the high turnover in staff would impact on their relative’s care. They commented; “Familiar and trusted staff have left and the things I relied upon to support my family are being affected, for example appointment letters from the hospital are not being opened and acted upon, I worry [my relative] will miss required and important scheduled treatments etc.” During the inspection we noted numerous items of post had not been opened promptly.

A health professional who visited the service regularly told us staff worked well with them and acted on any advice given.

The provider did not supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Information about activities in the service was displayed on a wall in the lounge. However, this information was inaccurate. Menus were not provided.

Some people had been asked to complete surveys relating to the care provided at Ocean Hill Lodge. A ‘You Said/ We Did’ document had been produced in response. However, this was not displayed where people were likely to see it.

The provider did not make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

Although some people had been asked to complete surveys not everyone was able to do this. Resident meetings were not being held to facilitate people’s opportunities to provide verbal feedback.

There was a complaints policy in place. A complaint had been raised by a relative and this had been addressed by the previous manager of the service. However, records showed the complainant had not been satisfied with the response.

Staff communicated well with people. We observed staff checking if people were enjoying their lunch and asking for feedback about a new dessert they had been served.

The provider did not always make sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People told us they had access to health professionals such as their GP when they needed to see them. Referrals were made to health care professionals where required. However, referrals were not always chased up when needed.

Care plans were not routinely updated to ensure they reflected the most recent information about the person and their needs. This could lead to inappropriate care.

Leaders did not listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not tailored in response to this.

There was a lack of evidence to show that people, and their representatives where appropriate, were included in the development of their care plans. There was no indication to show they were listened to about their experiences to ensure their care plans were tailored to their individual needs and preferences.People told us they did not have opportunities to take part in activities that interested them. One commented; “There is nothing here to stimulate me, it’s totally not for me. It’s a complete nothingness.”

People were not supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Care plans had not been updated to reflect people’s needs and wishes when they were at the end of their lives.