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. This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. We identified a breach of regulations relating to person centred care. There were limited opportunities for meaningful activities. People did not always receive responsive care or care that was person centred and focused on individual needs.

This service scored 56 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Relatives told us staff knew their family member well. One commented; “Most of them love [Relative's name], they absolutely love them.” However, people did not always receive person centred care. Staff did not have time to spend with people or to respond to their requests for support.

Staff did not always have time to spend supporting people with activities. An activity schedule showed there was a limited range of entertainment provided. However, staff knew what mattered to people and how they liked to spend their time. One member of staff explained how one person was not interested in recent Halloween activities they had organised. They commented; “It’s fair enough, it’s not their thing.”

Staffing levels meant care was task based and staff did not have time to respect people’s individual routines or preferences. We saw people wanting support to return to their rooms but staff did not have time to do this and tried to persuade people to remain where they were.

Relatives felt their family member did not always get referred to health services when needed. One told us they had recently arranged an appointment themselves.

Staff told us they worked with other agencies in the area to provide continuity of care. People received support from other agencies appropriately with managing their specific health needs. However, information sharing was not always effective.

Other health care professionals did not have any concerns in this area.

The process for sharing information between all stakeholders were not robust. For example, records showed one person had fallen several times. There was no evidence this had been referred to any other agency. Other people had lost weight over time. Records to monitor what people had eaten lacked detail and no extra monitoring had been put in place.

Relatives told us they were kept up to date about their family members well-being. One told us, “Most of the time they ring me straight away.”

Staff mainly communicated well with people. We did witness some occasions when staff communication was poor and did not meet people’s needs. Staff did not receive training to support their understanding of the principles of the Accessible Information Standards.

We did not see any examples of information being provided in alternative formats. There were no pictorial menus, people’s rooms were not clearly marked to help people identify them.

Resident and relative meetings had been held in the past although none had taken place recently. One relative told us they did not receive any information following meetings in relation to any actions taken.

Information about people’s emotional well-being was not always recorded. This meant this aspect of people’s support needs were not being effectively monitored.

There were no records of any complaints.

Most people were able to access services outside of the organisation. However, 4 people did not have care plans and so there was no information to guide staff on how they might want or need to access other agencies.

People’s specific needs were not always taken into account. One person was cared for in bed and their room was on the top floor at the end of a corridor. They received minimal social contact and were unable to tell us how to use their call bell. One member of staff told us they thought the person would be less isolated in a downstairs room but had been told this was not possible.

External professionals did not raise any concerns about this area.

There were processes to help ensure people attended regular screening checks and appointments.

People who were cared for in their room had limited opportunities for any meaningful engagement. No consideration had been given to how they might be protected from the risk of isolation. People who were more independent were encouraged to maintain links with the local community.

We observed people who were not independently mobile or who were quieter did not receive the same level of support as others. Due to demands on staff they tended to focus on people who were able to express a need for support.

We saw some information about people’s protected characteristics and their preferences. Staff had completed Equality and Diversity training and training in dementia awareness.

We did not receive any feedback about planning for the future from people or relatives.

Staff had received training in this area.

Some care plans contained information about how people wanted to be supported at the end of their lives.