Olive Tree House

We found the following examples of good practice.

At the time of the inspection the home was experiencing an outbreak of COVID-19. Plans in place to support people had been implemented effectively. Two out of the four floors were used to care for people with COVID-19. People were supported to isolate in their rooms.

There was a clear process for visitors, which included a temperature check and the wearing of PPE. The environment for visitors was COVID-19 secure and followed national guidance for visitors to care homes. A pod had been installed in the garden, with ceiling to floor screens to protect people. Visits had been stopped until further notice due to the outbreak. Exceptions were made if people were receiving end of care. People were able to keep in contact with family and friends by phone and video call. The registered manager kept in regular contact with people’s loved ones.

The service followed the current guidelines for care home testing; an enhanced testing regime was implemented during the outbreak. This was to ensure if people or staff had contracted COVID-19, measures were put in place in a timely way.

Staff had received training about good practice for infection prevention and control, including how to don and doff personal protective equipment (PPE) safely. We saw this was accessible throughout the home and staff used it in accordance with the most up to date guidance.

Infection control policies had been updated to reflect current national guidance. Information and guidance on infection control measures in place were available for staff. Additional signage was displayed with information and guidance on COVID-19 restrictions for visitors. We found the home to be clean with regular cleaning taking place throughout the day.

Olive Tree House opened in August 2016 and admissions to the home were well managed. There was a gradual opening of the whole service, and the top floor was finally opened at Christmas 2016. The home was fully occupied in May 2017.

The home is a purpose built, modern, state of the art building with facilities over three floors and passenger lift access to the upper floors. On the ground floor there is a Memory Lane, a set of reminiscence shops including a pub (The Concorde), grocery shop and record shop. Each floor has its own lounge dining room and kitchenette. In addition, there were other communal facilities including a library, sensory room and a roof top garden. All bedrooms had en-suite facilities including a shower plus there were assisted bathrooms on each floor. At the time of our inspection there were 65 people living in the home.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People were safe. This was because staff received safeguarding adults training and were knowledgeable about safeguarding issues. They knew what to do if there were concerns about a person’s welfare and who to report their concerns too. The service always followed robust staff recruitment procedures to ensure they employed the right staff and unsuitable staff were not employed. We found that the appropriate measures were in place to protect people from being harmed.

A range of risk assessments were completed for each person and ensured where risks were identified there were plans in place to reduce or eliminate the risk. The premises were well maintained. Regular maintenance checks were completed to ensure the building and facilities were safe. Checks were also made of the fire safety systems, the hot and cold water temperatures and equipment to make sure they were safe for staff and people to use. The management of medicines was safe meaning that people received their medicines as prescribed.

Staffing levels were regularly monitored and adjusted to ensure they were correct. The number of staff on duty was adjusted as and when necessary and based upon the collective care and support needs of the people who lived at Olive Tree House. Staff had enough time to meet people’s needs because there were enough of them on duty at any given time. People were safe because the staffing levels were sufficient.

The service was effective. New staff completed an induction training programme at the start of their employment and any new-to-care staff also completed the Care Certificate. There was a mandatory training programme for all other staff to complete to ensure they had the necessary skills and knowledge to care for people correctly. Care staff were encouraged to complete nationally recognised qualifications in health and social care.

An assessment of each person capacity to make decisions was made as part of the care planning process. People were always asked to consent before receiving care. They were encouraged to make their own choices about aspects of their daily life. We found the service to be meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

People were asked about their likes and dislikes in respect of food and drinks and provided with sufficient quantities of both. Specific dietary needs were catered for. The staff took the appropriate action where people were at risk of losing weight. There were good arrangements in place to ensure people saw their GP and other healthcare professionals as and when needed.

The service was caring. Staff knew the importance of developing good working relationships with the people they were looking after. There was a named nurse and key carer system in place and these staff members would link with the person’s family or friends. People were given the opportunity to take part in a range of different meaningful social activities. There were group activities and external entertainers visited the service on a regular basis.

The service was responsive to people’s individual care needs and adjusted the service delivery when people’s care needs changed. There were good assessment and care planning arrangements in place, which meant people were provided with a person centred service that met their own care and support needs. Staff received a handover report at the start of their shift, which meant they were always aware of any changes in people’s needs. They made records each day detailing how the person’s needs had been met.

The service was well led. The staff team was led by an experienced registered manager and a deputy and provided with good leadership. Staff meetings ensured they were kept up to date with changes and developments in the service.

The registered provider had a regular programme of audits in place, which ensured that the quality and safety of the service was checked. These checks were completed on a daily, weekly or monthly basis.