Olivemede

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated Good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 63 (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 proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events.

Accidents, incidents, complaints and safeguarding were documented. The registered manager and the deputy manager fostered a culture of continuous learning and ensuring safe practice was maintained. Information was shared with staff during meetings and handovers.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

Information relating to people’s care needs were assessed prior to them being admitted to the service. This helped to develop a person-centred care plan and risk assessments. People were also supported through hospital admissions and discharges, helping to ensure continuity of care and that their changing needs were appropriately identified and met.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

Staff demonstrated an understanding of safeguarding procedures and responsibilities. They had completed relevant safeguarding training and were able to explain the processes for recognising, responding to, and reporting concerns appropriately. One member of staff said, “If I had any concerns about someone’s safety then I would speak with the manager.”

The provider had a range of relevant policies and procedures in place, including a safeguarding adult’s policy and a whistleblowing policy, to support staff in raising and reporting concerns. Staff were aware of these processes and described a culture where they felt encouraged to speak up.

The provider did not always work well with people to understand and manage risks. Staff did not always provide care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Processes in place were not always effective in ensuring that risks to people were appropriately assessed and mitigated. One person had no risk assessments in place, while another had only a limited number of risk assessments completed. Although no harm had come to either individual, largely because staff knew them well and were familiar with their needs, there was a potential risk of harm due to the lack of robust risk management processes. The registered manager agreed to put risk assessments in place as a matter of urgency.

When accidents or incidents occurred, these were analysed and there was evidence that lessons were learned. Where necessary, care plans were updated to reduce the risk of recurrence and improve outcomes for people.

The provider did not always detect and control potential risks in the care environment. They did not always make sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

The service environment was looking tired in a number of areas, especially the upper floor. Comments included, “The décor is tired and dated,” “Its dated but clean,” and “The first-floor lounge is small and cramped.” Whilst there are a number of areas where people can choose to sit there is no dining area with table and chairs to support everyone who was in the service.

Policies and procedures were in place for the management of the service including infection prevention, fire safety and water safety, they did not cover maintenance and repair policy.

During our visit, we noted a lack of dementia‑friendly signage, such as signs with both words and pictures to identify bathrooms and toilets. This type of signage can significantly support people living with dementia to navigate the environment more independently.

Although the upper floor had access to the garden via a sloped pathway, the route zigzags through bushes, limiting visibility. This creates a risk that someone could fall without being seen, meaning the garden cannot be accessed safely and independently.

The provider had not identified this as a risk. While no harm had occurred, there was potential for harm due to the failure to recognise and assess the risk.

The provider had an up-to-date plan in place to help ensure people were supported in the event of an emergency.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. However, where they support work experience from the local college, risk assessments were not in place to ensure they do not work unsupervised to ensure people remain safe at all times.

Staffing levels were safe and well managed. The registered manager used a dependency tool to help ensure staffing levels were sufficient to meet people’s needs.

The provider carried out checks on the suitability of staff before they started working at the service. Systems in place included checks on new staff’s identity, eligibility to work in the United Kingdom, Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks. DBS checks provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. This information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions.

New staff received an induction to help ensure they were well prepared and felt confident to care for people. The induction program included a welcome and introduction to the service and people who lived there, and training that the provider identified as mandatory, such as safeguarding, infection control, moving and handling, and health and safety. Additional training was in place which covered areas such as Parkinson’s diabetes and dementia care.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

Appropriate systems were in place to protect people from the spread of infection. During the assessment we observed the home to be clean, tidy and odour free. Staff had access to PPE and undertook relevant training. One person said, “I get my room cleaned regularly.”

The provider did not always make sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff did not always involve people in planning.

Staff supported people to take their medicines safely and in a kind and respectful way. People were involved in decisions, and staff explained what the medicines were for. Medicines were stored securely, and administration records showed people received their prescribed medicines as intended. A sample audit of medicines for two people found that the quantities recorded did not match the number of medicines present in the box for one person. A full audit was to be undertaken following our visit.

However, records showed that the temperature in the medicine storage room exceeded the recommended limit. As a result, there is a risk that the medicines may have become less effective. The registered manager confirmed they would speak with the provider to address the issue.