Olive Tree Domiciliary Services Ltd

At the last inspection the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and on-going monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

We found that staff had been recruited safely. The staff we spoke with were aware of how to safeguard adults at risk. There were safe processes and practices in place for the management and administration of medicines.

People were usually supported by a small team of support workers. One person supported by the service told us they knew the staff who supported them and liked them. Relatives told us they were happy with the staff who supported their family members.

Staff received appropriate training. Relatives felt that staff had the knowledge and skills to meet people’s needs.

People received appropriate support with eating and drinking and their healthcare needs. Appropriate referrals were made to community health and social care professionals.

Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity and encouraged them to be as independent as possible.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way; the policies and systems at the service supported this practice. Where people lacked the capacity to make decisions about their care, the service had taken appropriate action in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

We saw evidence that people received care that reflected their needs, risks and preferences. Where appropriate, relatives had been consulted about people’s care and were updated by staff regularly.

We received positive feedback from one person being supported and relatives about the activities available. We found that people were supported regularly to take part in a variety of activities in the provider’s learning centre and the community.

Staff used a variety of methods to communicate effectively with people, including Makaton and providing information in a pictorial format.

The service had a registered manager in post. Relatives and staff told us they were happy with how the service was being managed.

The registered manager had sought regular feedback from the people supported, relatives and staff about the care and support provided. A high level of satisfaction had been expressed about most areas of the service. Where improvements had been suggested, we found evidence that action had been taken.

Audits of many aspects of the service had been completed regularly. We found the audits completed were effective in ensuring that appropriate levels of quality and safety were maintained at the service.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Is the service safe?

People were treated with respect and dignity by the staff. People told us they felt safe. Safeguarding procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported. We saw that there were effective systems on the prevention of or reporting possible abuse.

People who used the service told us, "I have family I can talk to but more often I call the office. They will talk to me if I have any concerns. You can call them at any time", "I can raise any concerns with the staff or the manager. I can also talk to my sister or Auntie. I see them regularly". A family member said, "I am aware of the complaints procedure and can contact the office when I want to at any time". Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learn from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations.

The service was safe, clean and hygienic. Equipment was well maintained and serviced regularly therefore not putting people at unnecessary risk. We saw that electrical and fire equipment had been maintained in the office and fire drills were conducted in people's homes.

Staff we spoke with and from the documents we looked at we saw that staff had been trained in mandatory topics such as health and safety, first aid, food hygiene, fire awareness, moving and handling, infection control and the administration of medication. Staff were sufficiently trained to deliver effective care

Is the service effective?

People who used the service told us, "I normally get the same member of staff. He is very reliable. He made some notes and we discussed my care" and "They write about my care and we talk about it to make sure I am getting the care I need". A family member said, "We have agreed to the care and support plans and signed everything because it is what we need". Staff we spoke with were aware of the need to involve people who used the service and their families in their care and obtain their consent. This helped ensure people received the care and support they needed.

People's health and care needs were assessed with them, and they were involved in writing their plans of care. Specialist dietary, mobility and equipment needs had been identified in care plans where required. People said that they had been involved in writing them and they reflected their current needs. People who used the service told us, "My care staff are very nice. My main carer looks after me very well" and "It's a good service. They help me with washing, shopping and cleaning. They help me cook. They do what I need". A family member said, "The staff are brilliant at the care they give. They are both very happy with their care". People we spoke with were very satisfied with the care they received.

People who used the service lived in their own homes but were supported to make decisions and helped with their finances if it was required.

Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learn from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.

Is the service caring?

People who used the service told us, "My care staff are very nice" and "I am very happy using the service. The staff are much better than the ones I used to have. They are very nice". A family member said, "We get the same staff. They are familiar with my children and their moods. They are brilliant at the care they give". People were supported by kind and attentive staff.

People who used the service, their family, friends and other professionals were asked about their views of the agancy. This included an annual survey which we looked at and saw the positive results. Part of the survey asked all concerned what they thought the service could do to improve. The provider used the comments and surveys to improve the service.

People had what the service called 'personal care plans'. The plans contained very detailed past histories. peoples likes and dislikes, their aspirations for the future and how staff could help them attain their goals. Care and support was provided in accordance with people's diverse needs which included any religious or ethnic needs.

Is the service responsive?

People who used the service had a wide range of interests and hobbies recorded in their plans of care. People told us, "The staff help me make my dinner. They are good cooks. They take me where I want to go when they come to help me. I still go to help out in the church. I make tea and coffee and do other jobs they ask me to". A family member said, "We use the service on a daily basis. We go swimming and they send sex and age appropriate staff for my children. We go to lots of places and sometimes they come along to support me. This is very important to me. I get some support". People completed a range of activities in and outside the service regularly.

The service conducted audits with people who used the service on a regular basis to ensure they received the care they needed. Staff were 'spot checked' to ensure they arrived at the right time and documentation was audited by managers to make sure the care given was accurate with the time spent with people who used the service.

Is the service well-led?

We saw that the service worked well with other agencies and organisations. We were told the service had just been added to the local authority preferred provider list. This meant the local authority had confidence in the way the service was going.

The service had quality assurance systems in place and records showed that people who used the service and other organisations were happy with the service provided. All the people we spoke with were very satisfied they could talk to management and were aware it was a twenty four hour a day service. Staff felt supported. As a result the quality of the service was continually improving.

We saw that staff were well trained and understood their roles. Staff received a handbook, which told them of the aims and objectives of the home as well as many key policy documents and other important aspects of being a good care staff member. Staff also had access to a copy of the Skills for Care codes of conduct. This document guides staff on how to lead other staff and what is expected of each individual. This helped to ensure people received a good quality service at all times.