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. This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. We identified a breach of the regulations in relation to person centred care. Care was not always arranged to meet people’s needs and preferences. Staff language and behaviour did not consistently demonstrate a dignified and respectful approach to care. Staff did not feel well-supported and felt they did not have enough time to spend with people. However, staff were knowledgeable about people’s individual characters, likes and dislikes.

This service scored 40 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff did not always respect the fact that Ocean Hill Lodge was people’s home. A radio was tuned to a music station and played very loudly. This was for staffs enjoyment and not for the people who lived there. There was a schedule for supporting people with baths and showers. This did not prioritise people’s preferences. We reviewed bath and shower records for October. Two people had been supported to have a shower or bed bath on 3 occasions. Everyone else had only had, or been offered, a shower or bed bath on 1 or 2 occasions or not at all. Some monitoring records were left on a dining table. This did not respect people’s private information.

Staff were positive when speaking to us about people and demonstrated some empathy for them. However, language used was not always dignified. We heard one member of staff say, “It’s toileting time.”

External professionals did not raise any concerns about staff approach.

We observed interactions between staff and people. We noted staff were often rushed and did not have time to sit with people. Care was focused on completing necessary tasks.

Care plans contained some information about people’s likes and preferences. Staff knew people well, however, they had limited time they could spend with people.

Staff were able to talk about people’s individual needs and how they preferred to be supported. For example, one member of staff told us how make up was important to one person and they would help them apply it if they had time.

We saw some people responded well to particular members of staff. This was known to staff and, when possible, these staff members engaged with people.

Training did not focus on treating people as individuals. Staff had not received training in person centred care. Care was task based, for example, the bath and shower schedule did not promote individuals choices.

People were not encouraged to take part in activities or pastimes that were meaningful to them. An activity schedule did not reflect a variety of opportunities.

Staff told us they did not have time to offer activities. One commented, “People are just sat in a chair doing nothing, that hurts me to say that, used to be able to do jigsaws and play games but now there are no staff so we can’t even sit with people to read the newspaper. Now all we can do is put a magazine in front of them. We used to do little exercises or games but now there is nothing whatsoever. It is hard to see, we work hard and love the residents but it does break your heart to see them just sit there in the chair all day.”

We observed some instances of staff engaging with people. Generally the atmosphere was fraught and staff were rushed and under pressure.

People’s care plans did not identify people’s preferred routines. On day 2 of the on-site assessment visit we noted one person being offered breakfast at 11.15am. Staff told us, “We had no choice this morning because of staffing. Normally he would be up by 10.00 at the latest.”

One person was cared for in bed on the upper floor at the end of a corridor. Staff had little time to check on them or spend with them and they were at risk of isolation. The person asked one of the inspectors, “Is it just you and me in this building?” Some people’s care plans stated they required regular checks throughout the night. Records did not clearly evidence this was taking place.

Staff told us they found it difficult to respond to people’s immediate needs due to staffing levels. For example, people’s continence needs were not met at an appropriate time during our assessment visit.

There were not enough staff to respond to people in a timely way. We observed one person trying to leave the lounge during the lunch period. The staff member available returned them to their chair several times before the staff member decided to support the person to their room.

Staff told us they were concerned about the future of the service and were not being kept up to date with changes. Some staff had worked additional hours because of staff shortages. One commented; “I added up my hours for the month….it’s no wonder I’m tired!”

Staff concerns had been exacerbated by recent discrepancies in their pay and changes to their terms and conditions. Some staff had not received payslips.