• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: Olive Branch Care Agency

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

15 Walnut Road, Chelston, Torquay, Devon, TQ2 6HP (01803) 607625

Provided and run by:
Mr Peter James Dalzell

All Inspections

16 and 21 July 2015

During a routine inspection

The inspection was announced and took place on 16 and 21 July 2015.

Olive Branch Care Agency is a domiciliary care agency that provides personal care and support to people in their own homes in the South Devon area. People who receive a service include younger people with physical support needs, as well as older people, some of whom may be living with dementia. At the time of this inspection the agency was providing a care service to over 70 people, but also provided domestic support such as gardening and cleaning services to many others. We did not inspect those activities as they did not fall under the CQC regulation. Frequency of visits varied depending on people’s individual needs, but the agency as a policy does not provide visits of less than half an hour.

At our last inspection of the service in August 2014 we had identified concerns over the staff recruitment process, training and support given to staff and the records kept by the agency. These had amounted to breaches of legislation. Following the inspection the provider had sent us a report telling us what they were going to do to put this right. On this inspection we saw that improvements had been made.

Some concerns on this inspection were expressed by people over scheduling and staff arriving at times other than those agreed in their care plan. The registered manager was aware of these concerns and was working to address them. Robust recruitment procedures were in place to help ensure that people were cared for by staff who were suitable to be working with potentially vulnerable people.

The service had a registered manager, who had been registered with the Care Quality Commission the week prior to our first visit. Like registered providers, registered managers 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.

Risks to people’s safety were assessed and reduced where possible. Risk assessments also covered risks to staff and risks presented by the environment in people’s homes. Staff understood how to keep people safe and how to report concerns about people’s welfare. They had received training in how to recognise safeguarding concerns and how to report them.

People received effective care from staff who had the appropriate skills and knowledge to meet their needs. Staff received support to carry out their role.

People were supported with their healthcare and dietary needs where this was a part of their care plan. Staff supported people in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005, and people were asked for their consent to care before this was delivered.

People told us that staff respected their dignity and privacy, and were professional but caring in their relationships with them. People’s independence was encouraged to ensure that their skills and self-esteem were maintained. People were supported to express their views and to be involved in making decisions about their care and support. People or their relatives told us they felt equal partners in decision making and were involved in daily choices over their care.

Changes to people’s care needs were addressed by the service without delay. People told us the service responded to their wishes; staff were flexible, and made changes to the services being delivered, for example if they had an appointment.

People were actively encouraged to give their views and raise concerns or complaints. The service viewed concerns and complaints as a way of improving the service and any concerns were addressed promptly. People told us they were happy to raise concerns with the service’s management.

The registered manager was newly in post but had managed to take action to improve both the quality of care and morale of the staff group. They had a clear vision of how they wanted to progress the organisation and ensured that other staff shared that sense of purpose and ethos. Internal and external quality assurance processes had been recently established and were working to support improvements in the quality of the service. People told us they found the manager approachable, and the service had improved recently since they had been in post.

Records were improved. Audits were being undertaken and where there were areas not yet completed, such as training updates for all staff there were robust plans in place to ensure they were actioned.

We have made a recommendation regarding monitoring the personal safety of staff while lone working.

28 August 2014

During an inspection in response to concerns

We carried out this inspection to follow up on concerns we had received about the service.

This inspection was carried out by an adult social care inspector. During the inspection we looked at the evidence to answer the key questions:

Is the service safe?

Is the service effective?

We, the Care Quality Commission (CQC) inspected Olive Branch Care Agency on the 28 August 2014 in response to concerns we had received over the recruitment and employment of staff, and staff working long hours without a break. We also looked at the outcome of recent notifications in relation to staffing issues that had been sent to us by the agency. The agency is required to do this by law.

Olive Branch Care Agency is a service providing care and support to people in their own homes. The agency also provides domestic support and other services such as gardening and home maintenance. This inspection only related to the provision of care and support. This was because personal care is the only activity at this location that is regulated by the Care Quality Commission.

We spoke with the Registered Manager, deputy manager and two members of staff. We also spoke over the telephone with two people who received a service. We reviewed records relating to the management of the service including staff records, policies and procedures.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.

If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

We were not able to substantiate concerns over staff working long hours without proper breaks. However, we did identify that staff were working before full recruitment checks had been carried out. This left people at risk of being cared for by staff who may be unsuitable to be working with potentially vulnerable people.

We also identified concerns about the induction and initial training available for new staff who may not have had experience working in care previously. This could leave people at risk of being cared for by people with very limited experience.

People told us they felt safe with the carers who supported them. One person we spoke with who received care from the agency told us that whenever there had been a change of staff the new staff had been introduced to them. Their care needs had been explained and new staff shadowed more experienced staff before they began working with them. They told us 'I have confidence in the staff who support me. They couldn't be better.'

Another person told us 'I used to have care from another agency. They were not a patch on Olive Branch. I am more than satisfied.'

Is the service effective?

People told us the services they received from Olive Branch Care Agency were effective in supporting them at home. One person told us 'if it wasn't for the staff from this agency I would have to be in hospital. The care that I get is second to none.'

Staff we spoke with demonstrated an understanding of the needs and anxieties of the people they were supporting. Records we saw were written to ensure that staff had a clear understanding of the person's needs and how they wished their care to be delivered. Records demonstrated that people's care was delivered effectively and in accordance with their wishes.

The agency tried to ensure people were cared for by regular carers they had built a relationship with. Staff were matched with people for their skills but also for their personal attributes and personalities. This told us that the agency understood how important personal qualities were in a caring role.

We saw that the agency was effective in addressing poorly performing staff.

11 December 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with five people who used the service and three relatives and saw five support plans. We spoke with three members of staff and observed two staff providing care. People we spoke with said the service was 'first class', 'absolutely wonderful' and 'I couldn't have wished for anything better'. One person said 'if you ask about what I preferred; G.P, consultant or carer, I would chose carers because they are my life'.

People were very complimentary about the staff that supported them. Comments about staff included; "carers are lovely', 'excellent' and one person told us 'I couldn't have wished for anyone better'. Other comments included 'I'm extremely grateful to them all' and 'I like a sense of humour'. One member of staff said 'I love my job'.

One person said they were 'able to make comments and they were listened to'. Comments from the last questionnaires included 'staff have gone above their call of duty to care and support me', 'I can't praise them enough' and 'they are brilliant at their job'. Other comments were 'your staff are always caring and attentive and friendly' and 'it's a wonderful service'. One person we spoke with said 'not only am I listened to but the service can deal with more complicated matters'. People we spoke with said that they had not had the full results back from the survey but they had been told that the results showed people 'were happy with it'.

4 March 2013

During a routine inspection

During our inspection of Mr Peter Dalzell (also known as the Olive Branch Care Agency) people and relatives of people who received a service told us they were very satisfied with the service being provided. One person said, 'They're wonderful, I'm very very pleased with them.' Another said, 'I have a set team and they're wonderful, absolutely wonderful.' Two people told us that this agency compared very favourably with other agencies they had used in the past.

People and their representatives were involved in deciding on the care they wanted to receive, and the way it was to be provided, and this was detailed in people's care plans. Assessments of potential risks and hazards, both to people who received a service and to the staff, were carried out and managed so that risks were minimised.

Policies and procedures were in place relating to safeguarding, staff had undergone training in safeguarding adults and staff we spoke with were aware of their responsibility to report any concerns. The provider had a robust recruitment procedure in place to make sure that only people suitable to work with vulnerable people were employed. Staff received a wide range of training to equip them for their role.

The manager described a range of measures that were in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service. This included annual satisfaction surveys, which were sent to people receiving a service and to the staff.