Olivemede

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture. This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

This service scored 71 (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 shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

Staff, relatives and people using the service felt there was a positive culture at the service. One relative said, “The care and responsiveness has improved with the new manager.” A member of staff told us, we work well together for the benefit of the residents.”

Communication channels between people, staff and management were open although not always effective. One relative told us, “I can’t visit often, I don’t get any updates unless something is needed.”

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

Feedback indicated there had been recent improvements in the management of the service. The management team were motivated to make improvements and were working on an improvement plan, with processes and systems being implemented and embedded.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

There were processes in place to allow people, relatives and staff to raise concerns and/or share ideas. People and relatives told us the registered manager and especially the deputy manager was very approachable and addressed any concerns they had immediately. One relative told us, “The manager is very friendly.”

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

Policies and procedures were in place to support workforce equality and diversity. Staff reported being treated fairly and equally.

The provider did not always have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability or good governance. They did not always act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate.

The provider had systems and processes in place to monitor the quality of the service; however, these were not always effective in identifying and addressing areas for improvement. We found that some care plans contained missing information, whilst one person’s plan had no information to provide staff with their care and support needs. The language used in certain care records was not always positive or person-centred.

We also identified discrepancies between medicines held and the associated records, and the registered manager advised that a further audit would be undertaken to review this. In addition, the temperature of the medicines room was found to be above the recommended limits, which could potentially affect the safe storage of medicines.

We found there had been an oversight in relation to meeting the requirements to notify CQC of certain events.

The registered manager and the deputy manager were passionate about their role and demonstrated a commitment to improving the service. They were receptive to feedback and openly engaged with our observations and recommendations throughout the inspection.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.

The registered manager worked in partnership with the local authority, community teams and were keen to listen and learn to make improvements to ensure that they provided good care to all. This was confirmed through information sharing meetings held with the local authority and the professional we spoke with on site.

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contributed to safe, effective practice and research.

The provider had systems and policies to ensure learning and improvement. We noted lessons learnt were in place and where concerns had been identified these concerns were shared with the staff team. The registered manager was very responsive to feedback on how to improve the experience for people living at the service and keen to put it in place. The registered manager and deputy manager send out surveys to receive feedback on improving the service. They also receive regular information from external organisations on up-to-date best practice.