CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Otterbourne Grange Residential Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors found concerns about cleanliness, staff knowledge of fire evacuation procedures and one medicines practice. They also found that recruitment, safeguarding, equipment checks and most medicines systems had improved.
- Effective?
- Good
- People generally received care that met their needs, with suitable training, healthcare referrals, food choices and support with consent. Some care plans were not fully up to date and three induction records were incomplete.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed during this focused inspection. The previous rating was carried forward when calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed during this focused inspection. The previous rating was carried forward when calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- New leaders had introduced quality checks and action plans, and staff said their concerns were now being heard. Relatives still wanted more regular communication and involvement in care planning.
What inspectors found, July 2021
Otterbourne Grange Residential Care Home was rated Good overall, but inspectors found cleaning, evacuation and one medicines practice needed improvement.
Inspectors visited without announcing it on 17 June 2021. They spoke with people, staff, relatives and a health professional. They also observed care and checked care, medicines, recruitment, training and management records.
The home was caring and attentive, and people generally received effective care. Food and drink choices were offered, staff knew people well, and safeguarding and recruitment arrangements had improved. However, inspectors found poor cleanliness, uncertainty about emergency evacuation arrangements and one unsafe medicines practice. A deep clean and other immediate actions took place after the visit.
The overall rating improved from Requires Improvement to Good. Effective and Well-led were rated Good. Safe remained Requires Improvement because there was limited assurance about safety. The inspection found the home was no longer in breach of the regulations identified at the previous inspections.
Kind, attentive staff
Inspectors saw staff taking their time and supporting people in a kind and attentive way. People said staff were helpful and kind.
“We observed staff supporting people in a kind and attentive way.” from the report
Improved safeguarding and recruitment
Staff understood their safeguarding duties and knew how to raise concerns. Recruitment checks had improved since the previous inspection.
“Staff had received training and were aware of their safeguarding responsibilities.” from the report
Food and drink choices
People were offered meal alternatives and drinks, and staff supported them with dignity. Meals were freshly prepared and adapted to people's preferences.
“People were offered a choice of two main meals and alternatives were available to people who did not want either main choice.” from the report
Stronger leadership
The leadership team had introduced regular audits and action plans. Staff said they felt more supported and could see positive changes.
“The leadership team was committed to driving improvements to the service and had detailed action plans in place to facilitate this.” from the report
Poor cleanliness
seriousInspectors found soiled shower chairs, built-up grime, strong smells, dirty walls and damaged or dirty surfaces. A deep clean was completed after the inspection.
“We were not assured that people were protected from the risks associated with poor cleanliness.” from the report
Emergency evacuation knowledge
seriousA staff member was unsure how to open an emergency escape door. The provider then reviewed the arrangements and made sure staff understood them.
“We were therefore not assured that all staff understood and followed the emergency evacuation procedures.” from the report
One medicines practice
seriousFor one person, staff left a later dose of medicine at the same time as an earlier dose. This was not recorded in the care plan or medicines record and could have created a risk.
“This was not reflected in the person's care plan or medicines administration record (MAR) and there were risks associated with this practice.” from the report
Care plans needed updating
needs fixingSome care plans did not contain enough current information. One had not been updated after a change in needs and another contained information that did not apply.
“One person's care plan had not been updated when their needs changed, and another care plan contained a generic statement that did not apply to the person.” from the report
Communication with relatives
needs fixingRelatives said communication was not proactive enough and that they were not always involved in planning or reviewing care.
“Most relatives felt unable to provide their views, because they felt their limited contact with the home meant they did not have enough experience of the quality of care.” from the report
- 01What checks now show that bathrooms, furniture, walls and other areas are being cleaned properly every day?
- 02How are all staff tested on the emergency evacuation arrangements, including opening the dining room and lounge doors?
- 03How do you make sure medicines arrangements agreed with a resident are recorded in the care plan and medicines administration record?
- 04Which care plans have been reviewed since the inspection, and how will you involve relatives in future reviews?
- 05Who is currently responsible for managing the home, and what is the progress on appointing a registered manager?
This was a focused inspection covering Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not assessed and their previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 July 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, December 2019
Otterbourne Grange Residential Care Home was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found progress on care risks but the inspection was limited and some safety checks were incomplete.
This was an unannounced targeted inspection on 5 November 2019. Inspectors checked whether the home had acted on a warning notice about assessing and reducing risks to people.
They found that health and mental health risks had been assessed. Care plans gave staff clear instructions, and senior staff had training about diabetes and epilepsy. Building safety risks had also been identified and action taken.
However, a full risk assessment for Legionella had not yet been completed. Some fire doors did not close fully when released, although this was fixed during the inspection. The overall rating stayed Requires Improvement because inspectors did not assess all five areas of care.
Clear care risk plans
Inspectors found that people's health and mental health risks had been assessed, with clear instructions for staff.
“People's health and mental health care risks had been assessed and care plans gave clear information for staff to follow” from the report
Relevant staff training
Senior staff had received training to support people with diabetes and epilepsy.
“Senior staff had received training to support people living with diabetes and epilepsy.” from the report
Building safety action
The home had identified building safety risks and acted to reduce them. Window restrictors were fitted and fire doors were fixed during the inspection.
“Risks around the safety of the building had been identified and action taken to reduce the risks.” from the report
Incomplete Legionella assessment
needs fixingRecords showed that water outlets were being flushed, but the home had not completed a comprehensive assessment of Legionella risks at the time of the inspection.
“a comprehensive risk assessment had not been carried out.” from the report
Fire doors needed repair
needs fixingSome fire doors did not fully close when released from their magnetic devices. The management team acted and the doors were working properly by the end of the inspection.
“some fire doors did not fully close when released from their magnetic closure device.” from the report
- 01Has the external Legionella risk assessment now been completed, and what actions did it require?
- 02How does the home check that care risk assessments and care plans remain up to date?
- 03How does the home regularly test that fire doors close properly?
- 04Which areas of care were not assessed during this targeted inspection?
- 05What further improvements are being monitored following the previous warning notice?
This was a targeted inspection of aspects of safety linked to a warning notice; the other key question areas were not assessed and the overall rating remained Requires Improvement. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 December 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 Otterbourne Grange Residential Care Home
5 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- July 2021Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Otterbourne Grange Residential Care Home →
- December 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Otterbourne Grange Residential Care Home →
- August 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2016Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2015
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 June 2013.
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.