CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Otterbourne House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found suitable staffing, detailed risk assessments, safe medicines arrangements and effective infection prevention. Staff were trained to safeguard people and respond when behaviour became challenging.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with dignity and respect. Relatives reported better communication and involvement than at the previous inspection, and people were supported to make choices and remain independent.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found regular audits, open communication and effective systems for identifying and acting on shortfalls. This improved from Requires Improvement, and the previous breach of Regulation 17 had ended.
What inspectors found, July 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, respectful care and improved leadership, with no evidence supporting allegations about staff behaviour.
The inspection visit took place on 24 May 2021. It was announced 48 hours beforehand. One inspector and an expert by experience reviewed care records, incident records, medicines, recruitment, training and management records. They also received feedback from six relatives and six staff members.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, caring and well-led were each rated Good. Inspectors found suitable staffing, safe medicines systems, detailed risk assessments, infection controls and respectful relationships between staff and residents.
The inspection followed concerns about staff behaviour and possible discrimination. Inspectors found no evidence to support these allegations, and were told the local authority had closed the case. The home had previously been rated Requires Improvement in 2018. Inspectors found improvements in caring and leadership, and said the home was no longer in breach of Regulation 17.
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored, recorded and given safely. Staff training and competency checks were regularly reviewed.
“Safe arrangements were in place for the storage, recording and administration of medicines.” from the report
Respect and dignity
Inspectors saw warm, positive relationships. People were supported with privacy, dignity, independence and their own choices.
“People were treated with dignity, and their privacy was respected.” from the report
Strong oversight
The home used regular audits covering care planning, fire safety and other areas. Identified shortfalls were acted on.
“There were robust audit systems in place which were carried out regularly.” from the report
Community activities
People were supported to take part in activities they chose and to access local places, including shops, walks and outings.
“During our visit a number of people were being supported in the community to participate in their chosen activities.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you assess and manage my relative's specific risks, including any behaviours that may challenge others?
- 02How will you keep me informed about changes in my relative's health, medicines, behaviour or care plan?
- 03What activities and community access would be available to my relative, based on their own interests and choices?
- 04How do you review incidents and make sure lessons are put into practice?
- 05How would you involve me, an advocate or other professionals in important care decisions?
This was an announced inspection focused on Safe, Caring and Well-led; the report does not give ratings for Effective or Responsive. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 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, July 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found safe care and responsive planning, but inconsistent staffing, nutrition, communication and oversight.
Inspectors visited unannounced on 29 March and 1 April 2019. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and professionals. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines records, staffing information, incidents, complaints and quality checks.
The home was rated Good for safety and responsiveness. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable risk plans, safe medicines practice and detailed plans for managing anxiety and communication needs.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for effectiveness, caring and leadership. Agency staff did not always have the right training, support with healthy food was inconsistent, and relatives did not always receive updates or feel involved. The home had also experienced high staff and management turnover.
The overall rating had fallen from Good at the previous inspection in December 2016. A new manager had made some early improvements, but inspectors could not yet see that these changes were firmly established. They found one breach involving the provider's systems for checking and improving quality.
Safety planning
People had plans covering health risks, anxiety, behaviour and emergency evacuation. Staff understood how to keep people safe.
“There were plans in place to keep people safe in the event of emergencies such as fires.” from the report
Medicines
Medicines records included instructions and people's preferred routines. Staff giving medicines were trained and checked as competent.
“People received their medicines from trained staff who had their competency checked.” from the report
Personalised care plans
Care plans set out individual ways to support people with anxiety, behaviour and communication.
“People's care plans detailed strategies staff could employ to support people to manage situations which caused them anxiety and escalating behaviour.” from the report
Early management improvements
The new manager had begun improving staffing, training, nutrition and the culture of the home. Inspectors described the manager as open about the work still needed.
“The manager was open and transparent in their approach when acknowledging where improvements to the quality and safety of the service were required.” from the report
Agency staff training
needs fixingNot all agency staff had training for positive behaviour support, physical intervention or epilepsy. Staff said this could make it harder to support people safely and effectively.
“However, not all agency staff had completed specific training in positive behaviour support, physical intervention or epilepsy.” from the report
Nutrition
needs fixingRelatives and staff described inconsistent support for healthy eating, including frequent snack food, takeaways and ready-made meals. Records did not always show that the planned support had been provided.
“We found that the records were not always sufficiently detailed to demonstrate how people were encouraged with a healthy balanced diet in line with their care plan.” from the report
Communication with families
needs fixingRelatives did not always receive updates about incidents, care changes or reviews. Some did not know which staff member was their main contact.
“The provider did not always demonstrate that it effectively communicated with relatives about their family members care.” from the report
Quality checks
seriousThe provider's internal checks gave a full compliance score but missed problems found by inspectors. This was a breach of Regulation 17.
“The failure to operate effective systems to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service was a breach of Regulation 17” from the report
- 01How are agency staff trained and checked before supporting people with epilepsy, anxiety or behaviours that challenge?
- 02What has changed to make support with healthy eating consistent, and how will you show this in daily records?
- 03How will you keep relatives informed about incidents, care plan reviews and changes in staff?
- 04Who is the registered manager now, and how are you checking that recent improvements are lasting?
- 05What action has been taken in response to the Regulation 17 breach?
This was an unannounced inspection of the care, accommodation and all five CQC question areas, involving observations, records and discussions with people, relatives, staff and professionals. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 July 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 House
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2021Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: GoodCaring: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 August 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.