We carried out a review of the data available to us about Olive House on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Olive House, you can give feedback on this service.
About the service
Olive House is a care home providing accommodation and personal care to people with a learning disability and autistic people. This service is registered to provide care and support to one person in one house.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
Based on our review of key questions Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led, the service was able to demonstrate how they were meeting some of the underpinning principles of Right support, right care, right culture.
Right support:
Staff supported people to follow their individual interests and to develop their independence.
There was clear guidance for staff for how to support people with risks to their health, safety and wellbeing.
The service worked well with health and care professionals to meet people’s care needs. Medicines were managed safely and staff supported people to access health services and maintain their health.
Staff supported people to follow their individual interests and to develop their independence. The service provided a clear and positive ethos to guide staff in how to support people to maximise their choices and independence. People had support to follow their own chosen lifestyles. Staff supported them with their personal care needs and their independence.
Staff were trained to meet the needs of the people they were supporting with one exception; they had not been provided with training to better understand a person’s health condition.
Staff were aware of people’s individual personalities and preferences. People were encouraged and supported to be involved in meaningful activities.
Right care:
A person’s relative was satisfied that Olive House provided good care and a stable home for their relative. When a person told us about their daily routines and wishes, it was evident that people received good care and support to lead a fulfilling life. People were not consistently supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives as staff did not support them in the least restrictive way possible in one aspect of their care. There was a restriction in place which the person had previously agreed to but told us they no longer wished the restriction to be in place.
There was a strong commitment to delivering person-centred care and staff respected individuality. Staff had good knowledge of people’s individual communication needs and treated people with kindness and respect while providing care.
Right culture:
Staff formed relationships with people they supported and the environment of the home fully reflected the personality and interests of the person living there. People’s families were involved in their care and support and people benefitted from a stable enthusiastic staff team who were committed to providing them with the best care.
The provider had a quality assurance system in place to check that the service was running safely and meeting people’s needs. The registered manager was committed to continuous learning. There was an open culture in the service where staff enjoyed working and relatives felt involved.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published 04/10/2017).
Why we inspected
We inspected this service as it had been five years since the last inspection. This was a focused inspection looking at the key questions safe, effective, responsive and well-led. For those key questions not inspected, we used the ratings awarded at the last inspection to calculate the overall rating. The overall rating for the service has remained good. This is based on the findings at this inspection.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Olive House on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.
Recommendations
We have made two recommendations. One is that staff receive training on understanding a health condition relevant to the person they support. We made another recommendation that the provider follows the process to review any restrictions in place for people in line with good practice.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.
Olive House is a care home registered to accommodate one person. Its services focus mainly on caring for adults who have a learning disability. The service is situated in High Barnet, in a residential area. The provider, P & P Community services Limited also manages four similar services across London.
The service had a registered manager. 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.
At the last inspection, the service was rated as overall Good.
At this inspection we found the service remained Good.
We observed some good interaction between staff and the person using the service and staff respected the person’s choices and preferences.
People were safe from the risk of abuse because staff knew the signs to look for and what action to take should they suspect any abuse, including reporting any concerns to the relevant authorities.
Risk assessments identified risks and how these should be mitigated. Medicines were managed safely.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to meet people’s needs. Staff felt supported in their role and received training relevant to their job.
People’s nutritional needs were met and staff knew their likes and dislikes and preferences for care.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
We carried out an unannounced inspection on the 5 June 2015.
Olive House is a care home registered to accommodate one person. Its services focus mainly on caring for adults who have a learning disability. The service is situated in High Barnet, in a residential area. The service consists of four flats, three with five bedrooms and a bedsit for one person.
At the time of our inspection there was a registered manager in position. 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.’
At our last inspection in November 2013 we found the service was meeting with the standards inspected.
We observed how care was being delivered and saw some excellent interactions between staff and the person using the service. We saw that staff were caring, kind and showed compassion.
People were treated with dignity and respect and their privacy maintained. We saw that staff spoke in a calm manner and explained what they were doing before supporting the person using the service.
People were given choice and their individual needs were being met by the service, this included working with other healthcare professionals. The person using the service was involved in their day to day care and made decisions about what type of care they wanted.
People’s nutritional needs were met by the service and they were encouraged to take part in meal preparations.
Staff supported people to maintain their safety. Assessments were undertaken to identify any risks to identify any risks to a person’s safety and management plans were in place to address those risks. Staff received appropriate training and regular supervision. They told us they felt supported by their manager.
People confirmed that they felt safe and supported by staff. There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to meet people’s needs. People received their medicine as prescribed and medicine management systems were in place.
We saw that the provider had a number of auditing systems to monitor the quality of the service. Audits included areas such as cleanliness and infection control, and health and safety of the building.
We carried out a compliance review to check compliance against the action plan produced by the registered manager had been implemented. During this visit we found that the service had made improvements. Since our visit in May 2013 we saw that the care plan had been updated and a new risk assessment implemented for 'spending money and financial ability.' There was a contract for supporting the person to manage their finances, which was signed by them in July 2013. This was confirmed by the person receiving care and support who told us that the care was, 'good really.' Service risk assessments were in place and covered areas such as, infection control and fire safety.
We spoke with a social worker who told us that they were happy with the way staff worked with the person using the service. They told us that the person had settled 'a lot,' and that the service appears to be 'doing their best' to meet the person's needs.
The person using the service told us they were happy with the support provided by staff. They gave examples of a range of activities in the local community which they took part in. They generally felt safe at the service, and they knew how to contact the manager if they had concerns.
We found that the provider ensured that the person using the service was supported by suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who supported them from the risks of inadequate nutrition and dehydration, and protected them from the risk of abuse.
However, we found minor concerns with the planning and delivery of care, including for financial support and behaviours that challenged, because planning and delivery were not always consistent in aiming to meet the person's individual needs and ensure their welfare and safety.
We also found minor concerns with the provider's systems to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of the person using services and others. This was because incidents were not effectively analysed, to identify and support necessary changes to care practice.
Staff understood the importance of enabling the person using the service to be independent where possible. They were respectful and friendly in their interactions with the person using the service, knew how to communicate with them, and understood their needs.
Staff received appropriate professional development and support. However, we found that a staff member had recently worked alone at the service a number of times, before the provider had acquired satisfactory references relating to their previous employment. This put the person using the service at unnecessary risk.