CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Ocean Breeze Residential Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe, staffing levels were considered sufficient, and staff knew how to recognise and report abuse. Risks, fire safety, recruitment and medicines were generally managed well.
- Effective?
- Good
- People and families were involved in care planning. Staff were trained and supported, people received suitable food and healthcare, and staff followed the Mental Capacity Act principles.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. The report says no concerns were identified in the other key questions, so previous ratings were used.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. The report says no concerns were identified in the other key questions, so previous ratings were used.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- People and families were happy with the management, but governance systems were not fully reliable. Some audits were overdue or unclear, and some care plan reviews were not recorded.
What inspectors found, April 2021
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, effective and caring support, but the home’s leadership and quality checks still require improvement.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 10 and 17 March 2021. Inspectors checked whether the home had acted on its previous improvement plan. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care and medicines, and reviewed care, staff and management records.
People told inspectors they felt safe and were treated kindly. Staff responded promptly, medicines were given as prescribed, risks were assessed, and people received support with food, drink and healthcare. Staff training, supervision and recruitment checks were generally in place.
The overall rating improved from Requires Improvement to Good. Safe and Effective were rated Good. Well-led remained Requires Improvement because some audits were unclear or overdue, some care plan reviews were not recorded, and some infection control procedures did not follow the latest guidance.
People felt safe
People and relatives said they felt safe. Inspectors saw staff respond promptly and compassionately to requests for help.
“People felt safe living at Ocean Breeze Residential Care Home and they were very much at the heart of the service.” from the report
Responsive staffing
Staffing levels matched the planned ratio and staff were not rushed when supporting people.
“We observed that staff were not rushed and responded promptly and compassionately to people's requests for support.” from the report
Support with meals
People had a choice of meals, including visual choices to help people living with dementia. Mealtimes were calm and sociable.
“There was a relaxed atmosphere in the dining room and the meal was unhurried.” from the report
Person-centred care
Care was planned around people's needs and helped them keep their skills and independence.
“People received person-centred support and care delivery ensured people were enabled to maintain skills and independence.” from the report
Quality audits were not consistent
needs fixingSome audits did not show who completed them or when. Some had scores without explanations or actions, and audits for care plans and medicines were missing.
“For the health and safety audits there were just scores and no actions to complete.” from the report
Care plan reviews were not always recorded
needs fixingThe care plans inspectors sampled were person-centred, but monthly reviews could not be seen in all the records checked.
“Care plans sampled were person centred. However, we could not see that these had been reviewed monthly on all the files we viewed.” from the report
Some infection procedures needed correcting
needs fixingThe home used a ten-day isolation period after hospital discharge instead of the recommended fourteen days. The manager was given updated guidance and then followed the latest testing and isolation guidance.
“However, we noted a couple of procedures that did not follow all of the government guidance regarding isolation times for people coming out of hospital which was only ten days instead of the recommended fourteen.” from the report
One recruitment record was incomplete
minorOne staff file did not contain a full employment history. The manager obtained this after inspectors raised the issue.
“However, records showed for one person a full employment history was not obtained as required by schedule 3 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008.” from the report
- 01How are the overdue or unclear audits now being completed, dated and followed up?
- 02How often are care plans reviewed, and how will you show that each review has taken place?
- 03What isolation period do you currently use for people returning from hospital, and how do you keep this in line with current guidance?
- 04How do you check that every new staff member has provided a complete employment history before starting?
- 05How will you show that medicines and care plan audits are completed each month?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and previous ratings for those questions were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 April 2021 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, September 2019
Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, responsive care but serious gaps in medicines, risk management, records and oversight.
Inspectors visited on three days without an appointment. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals. They observed care and reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff files, accidents and quality checks.
People were generally described as safe and very happy with their care. Staff were kind, patient and respectful. People had suitable food, healthcare support, activities and welcome visits. However, inspectors found that some risks were not identified or managed properly.
One person received the wrong medicine for 28 days before the error was found. The home had also missed a serious self-harm risk, and incident reviews were not always thorough. Some people who could not make decisions were not always supported under the law.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Caring and Responsive were rated Good. Safe, Effective and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement. This was worse than the previous overall Good rating published in August 2016.
Kind and respectful care
Staff treated people with patience, kindness and respect. They involved people in everyday choices and encouraged independence.
“Staff supported people with patience, kindness and respect and involved them in decisions about their care.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs and keep them safe. Staff had time to talk with people and did not rush them.
“There were enough staff deployed to meet people's needs and keep them safe.” from the report
Food and health support
Meals were freshly prepared and adapted for allergies, diabetes and other needs. Staff helped people eat and drink and arranged healthcare when needed.
“Meals were wholesome and freshly prepared each day by the chef using fresh ingredients.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People could take part in activities and maintain important relationships. Visitors were welcome at any time.
“The home had a programme of planned and ad hoc daily activities.” from the report
End-of-life care
People could remain at the home at the end of their lives if they wished. Staff worked with healthcare professionals and arranged support for relatives.
“People received compassionate, caring and sensitive end of life care.” from the report
Unidentified self-harm risk
seriousA known significant self-harm risk was not identified before admission. The person later displayed the behaviour and was at risk of serious harm or possible death.
“The person went on to display the same self-injurious behaviour five months later, putting them at risk of serious harm or possible death.” from the report
Weak incident reviews
seriousAccident and incident records were not always complete, signed off or clear enough to show what happened and what had been learned.
“We were not assured there was a robust approach to incident investigation and monitoring.” from the report
Mental capacity decisions
seriousFor one person who lacked capacity, the home recorded consent from a relative who had no legal authority instead of completing a best-interest decision.
“Where people lacked mental capacity their rights had not always been protected.” from the report
Incomplete training
needs fixingMany staff were not up to date with important training, including basic life support, equality and human rights, mental capacity and nutrition.
“However, we noted that not all staff were up to date with all of their training, including the registered manager.” from the report
Ineffective quality checks
seriousAudits and records did not identify most of the problems inspectors found. Care plans and risk assessments were not always current or easy to follow.
“However, these were not always robust or effective as they had not identified most of the issues we raised during the inspection.” from the report
- 01What checks are now used to make sure medicines received from the pharmacy match the prescription and medicine record?
- 02How are serious incidents and accidents now investigated, signed off and used to prevent them happening again?
- 03How do you identify and manage significant risks, including self-harm risks, before someone moves in?
- 04How do you make sure best-interest decisions are recorded correctly for people who lack capacity?
- 05Which staff training was incomplete at the inspection, and is it now up to date for everyone?
This unannounced inspection covered all five CQC questions; Safe, Effective and Well-led fell from Good to Requires Improvement, while Caring and Responsive remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 September 2019 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Ocean Breeze Residential Care Home
4 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- April 2021Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Ocean Breeze Residential Care Home →
- September 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Ocean Breeze Residential Care Home →
- January 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016Inspected but not ratedSafe: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 January 2015.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
26 live-in carers within about an hour of Hampshire
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.