Olive Tree House

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

People were supported to give feedback and understand their rights. They felt staff listened to them and made changes where possible or necessary. Relatives felt able to contact members of the management team or other staff if they had concerns or problems. Staff looked for ways to address the barriers people might face to improve people’s care and achieve equity. Staff told us they were committed to providing high quality care which met people’s individual needs. There was an awareness of equality and human rights legal requirements throughout the organisation.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Person-centred Care during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

Staff received training in equality and diversity and were alert to potential discrimination or inequalities. They aimed to address barriers to improve people’s care and achieve equity. For example, one person had poor vision and did not speak English as a first language. Staff had embraced technological solutions to assist in communicating with the person to meet their needs. Staff told us they were committed to providing high quality care which met people’s individual needs. We were shown a wide range of examples which showed how staff had tailored people’s care to meet unique or challenging needs. This included making adjustments to address barriers arising from communication, physical needs, cognitive needs and cultural requirements.

People, their relatives and professionals spoke positively about the service and staff team. One person said, “People here are very good. They tell me not to worry. I get frightened because I don’t know where I am, but I think they look after me.” Relatives felt able to contact members of the management team or other staff if they had concerns or problems. One relative said, “I can always talk to the manager or the assistant manager, they’re often on the floor chatting to residents.” Some relatives were not aware of meetings which took place, although notes of these were distributed. Relatives told us staff usually acted to make improvements where they could.

The registered manager told us there had been monthly resident’s meetings, but some people were not able to engage in these. There was a plan to meet individually with people to ensure barriers were removed and everyone was given an opportunity to feedback about their care in ways that worked for them. People and relatives were regularly asked to provide formal feedback about their experience. Surveys were carried out and feedback was reviewed and analysed to support change and action where necessary. The provider’s mission statement said people’s individuality, privacy and dignity was valued and held at the heart of the service. There was an awareness of equality and human rights legal requirements in the organisation.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.