Olivemede

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

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated Good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 68 (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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices, and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Care plans contained person-centred information to guide staff on the support people required and were regularly reviewed. However, we identified areas where further improvement was needed to ensure information was consistent and written in a positive manner.

Although staff demonstrated a good knowledge of people's preferences, likes and dislikes, we found gaps in some care records. For example, one person admitted for a short-term stay had no documented information outlining how staff should support them with their care needs. While staff were able to verbally explain the support required and no harm had occurred, the absence of documented guidance increased the potential risk of unsafe or inconsistent care.

We also reviewed another person's care record, which contained very limited detail about how staff should support them. Although no harm had resulted, insufficient information could impact the delivery of person-centred and consistent care.

People were offered choices in their daily routines and encouraged to engage in activities that they took part in.

Overall people and their relatives were positive about their care. One person said, “The girls are great here. I need help with most things; I can’t fault the care.” One relative told us, “The care is really good, they need full help and they are always clean. They get paracetamol as needed.” One relative said, The staff are not always quick to respond when [name] has complained about pain and wanted to see the GP.”

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

People benefitted from partnership working with commissioners, GPs and health professionals to ensure people’s needs were understood. GP’s ensured people’s health needs were kept under review, and people were referred to other professionals when needed. One person told us, “I can have a doctor if I need one.”

Peoples’ records included information about advice provided by other professionals, and this was kept under review. We spoke with a visiting professional who was complimentary about the care people received by staff and said they were good at following instructions.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information although its information could be put into different formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The provider had suitable policies in place to ensure information about the service was readily available to people and families and was able to adapt information to various formats where this was needed.

The registered manager offered regular meetings for people who use the service and their families. Although some families we spoke with who aren’t able to visit the service felt they were not kept informed regularly. One relative said, “I haven’t had any contact from the home for quite a while, I certainly don’t get regular updates.”

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Policies and procedures were in place to ensure complaints were managed and responded to effectively. People and their relatives told us they felt comfortable raising concerns with the registered manager and were confident that any issues would be addressed appropriately. However, one person told us they had not received a response to an email they had sent. This indicated that, whilst people generally had confidence in the complaints process, there was an isolated instance where communication had not met expectations.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People told us they had access to the care and support they required and were happy with this. They felt their needs were met and the staff cared and supported them effectively. Records showed people were supported to attend appointments and a range of healthcare professionals visited the service regularly. Records of visits were included in people’s care plans and the staff ensured they followed instructions.

Care plans were reviewed to identify any changes in a person’s care needs so the appropriate support could be found if needed. This included making appropriate referrals to external professionals as needed.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

The provider had an equality and diversity policy in place and was committed to creating a welcoming and inclusive atmosphere for all people and staff, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression. We have noted that some areas of the service require re-decoration and signage to ensure a more welcome atmosphere for all.

People’s care plans indicated they had been consulted in decision making, including whether they preferred to receive care from a male or female care worker. Their care plans reflected people’s physical, mental, emotional and social needs. Although there is further work to be undertaken with some care plans to ensure staff have more detailed information to fully support people on a daily basis.

The registered manager liaised closely with commissioners in relation to what they wanted the service to provide for people, so that people’s needs would be met effectively.

People and their relatives raised no concerns related to discrimination or unequal experiences.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Where people had chosen to discuss it, their end-of-life decisions were documented. We found that whilst some decisions had been made not all had been recorded. We spoke with the registered manager about discussing peoples wishes with families if the person could not make their own decisions and record in the plan of care.