OLIVE ROW CARE HOME

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to governance. Significant improvements had been made, and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation.

This service scored 64 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities. The provider had taken over the service in August 2024 and had implemented their existing systems and cultures of high-quality care into all areas of the service, however, this was an on-going process and some areas required embedding into practice such as ensuring people received their oral care and their personal care in a timely way. The provider set up and started a daily meeting on the day of inspection to capture people’s experiences and ensure managers could make immediate changes to help improve the quality of the service. This meeting needed to be embedded into practice. A relative told us, “It seems to be turning around, improving all the time, they are doing their best, good people.”

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. However, key staff such as nurses were new or had not yet commenced employment. The provider had deployed interim managers and leaders including a clinical lead to make the required changes to improve the service. The provider need to embed a permanent team to ensure continuous implementation and embedding of their systems. People, relatives and staff told us they were happy with the new interim manager and interim clinical lead and described them as good. The provider was recruiting and developing new managers and leaders to manage the service in line with provider’s standards and procedures.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. The provider held meetings with people and their relatives. The meeting minutes demonstrated how the provider had listened to the feedback and made changes such as increased frequency of meetings, shade for the garden and external entertainment. A relative said, “I have been in the lounge for residents’ meetings, its good you can ask a question and get feedback.” Staff told us they had meetings twice a month and they felt able to discuss concerns and were listened to. The provider had systems in place for staff to raise concerns with management, the provider or external agencies without fear of reprisal. The representative of the provider told us they were continually striving to improve, they encouraged staff, people and relatives to speak up if they had any concerns and were transparent in how they managed these.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them. The provider employed staff from a diverse background, with strong skills and knowledge. Staff were positive about their job role and all staff were treated equally.

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and but required additional systems for governance. For example, further systems were required to identify whether people were involved in their risk assessments and care planning, staff followed infection control procedures, and fire safety procedures were maintained. The provider had implemented their existing audits and used the results from these to create and complete action plans. The responsibilities for completing actions had been allocated to competent leaders and the provider worked with them to provide the resources needed to complete actions.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement. The GP told us the co-ordination of clinical staff had improved the identification of ill health and improved the medicines management.

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. The provider continually checked that all completed actions on their action plan remained embedded and improved their audits where unexpected issues arose. Improvements had been made to the system for recording of detailed notes from GP rounds and sharing information within the clinical team.