We carried out a review of the data available to us about Warm Melody Retreat on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Warm Melody Retreat, you can give feedback on this service.
Ocean Retreat is a residential care home which can support up to four people in one adapted building. The service specialises in supporting people with mental health needs. There were three people using the service at the time of this inspection.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People were safe at the service. Staff had been trained to safeguard people from abuse and knew how to manage risks to people to keep them safe. There were enough staff to support people. Recruitment and criminal records checks had been undertaken on staff to make sure they were suitable to support people.
People had a choice of comfortable spaces to spend time in at Ocean Retreat. The provider adapted the premises when needed to meet people’s needs. The premises were clean and tidy. Staff followed current hygiene practice to reduce the risk of infections. Visitors to the service were given information to help them reduce the risk of catching and spreading infection. Health and safety checks of the premises and equipment were carried out at regular intervals.
People were involved in planning their care and support and could state their preferences for how their care was provided. Staff knew people well and understood how their needs should be met. They were provided relevant training to help them meet people’s needs. Staff were supported by the provider to continuously improve their working practices to help people achieve positive outcomes.
Staff were kind and caring and respected people’s rights to privacy and to be treated with dignity. People were supported to be as independent as they could be with daily living tasks. They were helped to undertake activities and interests they were interested in and to maintain relationships with the people important to them. Relatives were free to visit family members without unnecessary restrictions.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People were supported to stay healthy and well. Staff helped people eat and drink enough to meet their needs, to take their prescribed medicines and to manage their healthcare and mental health needs. Recommendations from healthcare professionals were acted on so that people received the care and support they needed in relation to their healthcare and mental health needs.
People were satisfied with the quality of care and support they received. People knew how to make a complaint if needed. The provider had arrangements in place to make sure any accidents, incidents and complaints were investigated and people kept involved and informed of the outcome.
The provider encouraged people and staff to have their say about how the service could improve. They used this feedback along with regular audits and checks, to monitor, review and improve the quality and safety of the support provided.
The service worked proactively with other agencies and healthcare professionals. The provider acted on their recommendations to improve the quality and safety of the service for people.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the Care Quality Commission (CQC) website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Rating at last inspection
This service was registered with us on 11/07/2018. The service was first inspected on 13/03/2019 and then again on 16/09/2019. We were not able to rate the service on either occasion as we were unable to obtain sufficient evidence of consistent good practice to do so. You can read the reports from these inspections on our website.
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the length of time since the service registered with the CQC.
We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to coronavirus and other infection outbreaks effectively.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
Ocean Retreat is a residential care home providing personal care to up to four people in one adapted building. The service specialises in supporting people with mental health needs. There was one person using the service at the time of this inspection. They had started using the service after our last inspection.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
The person using the service was safe. Staff were trained to safeguard the person and knew how to keep them safe from risks to their safety and wellbeing. The provider had arrangements in place to maintain and service the premises and equipment to make sure they were safe. The premises were clean and tidy. Staff followed good practice when providing care and when preparing and handling food which reduced infection risks.
There were enough staff to support the person. However, the service had experienced turnover in staff which meant the person had not always received consistent care as new staff needed time to learn about them and the care and support they required. The provider carried out checks on staff before they started work to make sure they were suitable. Staff were provided training to help them meet people’s needs. The registered manager met with staff regularly to make sure they understood their responsibilities and to help them improve their working practices.
The person was involved in planning the care and support they needed. Their records contained information for staff about how they should be supported with their physical and mental health needs. Staff provided support in line with the person’s wishes. The person was supported to attend regular appointments with professionals involved in their care and treatment. Recommendations from professionals were acted on so that the person received relevant care and support in relation to their healthcare needs. The person was encouraged to eat meals they liked, to drink enough to meet their needs and to take their prescribed medicines.
Staff were friendly and kind and supported the person in a dignified way which maintained their privacy and independence. The person was supported to have maximum choice and control of their life and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. There were a range of spaces for the person to spend time in when at home and staff were starting to plan how to support the person to take part in activities of their choice.
There were systems in place to assess the quality and safety of the service. However, we could not fully check at this inspection if these were being used effectively to improve the quality and safety of the service when needed. The provider was acting to improve this after this inspection.
The registered manager worked closely with the provider to manage the service. But it was not clear at times where management responsibilities lay, which could impact on the quality of care and support provided to people. The provider was reviewing management arrangements immediately after this inspection to make sure these did not pose unnecessary risks to people.
The registered manager notified us, without delay, of incidents involving people. They made sure incidents and complaints were investigated. Learning from investigations was shared with staff to help them improve the quality and safety of the support provided. However, some decisions made by the provider in response to incidents had not helped to protect people and others. The provider was taking action to ensure future decisions would keep people and others safe from risks at all times.
The person and staff were encouraged to give feedback about how the service could improve. The provider worked with other agencies to make improvements and acted on their recommendations to improve the quality and safety of the service. The provider was working on improving relationships with the local community after incidents at the service had raised concerns.
As the service had only been supporting the person using the service for six months, we were unable to obtain sufficient evidence of consistent good practice to rate the service at this time.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Rating at last inspection
This service was not rated at the last inspection (published 8 April 2019). This is because we were unable to gather enough information and evidence of consistent good practice to rate the service at that time. At this inspection the service remains unrated.
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on our usual timescales for inspecting unrated services.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
Ocean Retreat is a residential care home that accommodates up to four people in one adapted building. The service specialises in supporting people with mental health needs. There was one person using the service at the time of this inspection. For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk.
People’s experience of using this service:
The person using the service told us they felt safe with staff. Staff were able to meet their needs and supported them in a dignified, respectful way which maintained their privacy and independence. The provider made sure the person received support from the same staff so that this was consistent.
The person’s views, choices and wishes had been considered when planning and delivering the care and support they needed. There was current and relevant information for staff about how the person’s needs should be met. Risks to the person had been assessed and staff had guidance on how these should be managed to keep them safe. The person’s care and support was reviewed with them weekly to make sure this was continuing to meet their needs.
Staff sought the person’s consent before providing any support. They were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
There were enough staff to support the person. The provider made sure staff were suitable and fit to support people through their recruitment checks. Staff received relevant training to help them meet people’s needs. They were supported by the provider to continuously improve their working practices.
Staff were trained to safeguard people from abuse and knew how to report concerns to the appropriate individual and/or authority. The provider carried out safety checks of the premises. They made sure the premises and equipment were appropriately maintained and serviced so that they were safe. The premises were clean and provided a range of spaces that the person could use comfortably when at home. Staff followed good practice to ensure risks were minimised from poor hygiene and cleanliness and when preparing and handling food.
Staff supported the person to eat and drink sufficient amounts to meet their needs and to take their prescribed medicines. Medicines were stored safely. Staff documented the support provided to the person and kept others involved in their care up to date and informed about the person’s health and wellbeing.
The person had been provided information about how to make a complaint if needed. The provider had arrangements in place to deal with complaints about the service. The provider recorded and investigated any accidents and incidents that occurred, which included keeping people involved and informed of the outcome.
The provider had aims and standards for the service and had informed the person what they should expect from staff and the service in respect of the quality of care they received. Staff had clearly defined roles and duties and the registered manager understood their legal responsibilities regarding the Health and Social Care Act 2008.
The provider sought the person’s views about how the service could be improved. They used this feedback along with learning from incidents and other checks of the service to monitor, review and improve the quality and safety of the support provided. The provider worked with other agencies such as the local authority to develop and improve the support provided.
The person using the service had only been doing so for six weeks. Because of this we were unable to gather enough information about their experiences and evidence of consistent good practice to rate the service at this time.
Rating at last inspection:
The service registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in July 2018. The provider did not start providing a service until September 2018. This is the first comprehensive inspection of the service since registration.
Why we inspected:
We normally inspect new services within 12 months of them registering with CQC. We scheduled a comprehensive inspection to check the safety and quality of care people received.
Follow up:
We will continue to monitor the service to ensure that people receive safe, compassionate, high quality care. Further inspections will be planned in line with our inspection schedule or in response to concerns.