We carried out a review of the data available to us about Olive Tree Services 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 Tree Services, you can give feedback on this service.
Olive Tree Services is registered as a domiciliary care agency and as such provides personal care and support to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. Not everyone using the service receives a regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with 'personal care'; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided.
Rating at last inspection
At our last inspection we rated the service 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 ongoing 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.
Why the service is rated Good:
At the time of our inspection, 15 people were supported with their personal care needs by the service. There was 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.
Staff training records evidenced a range of training courses and specialist training was arranged when necessary. Staff felt they had an adequate induction before working alone and felt supported in their roles and responsibilities by their managers. The service worked with social and healthcare professionals to support people maintain their health. However, communication with these professionals did not always evidence an appropriate timely response.
We have made a recommendation to the provider to consider reviewing their protocols around effective communication with external agencies to ensure people receive timely support.
People and their relatives were involved in all decisions about how they wanted their care and support needs met. People spoke positively about the relationships they had with staff. 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 support this practice. People were supported to have sufficient to eat and drink.
Staff had received training to ensure people’s safety was maximised and they knew how to report concerns. People’s risks were assessed and reviewed regularly to ensure care remained appropriate to meet their needs. There were sufficient numbers of trained staff who had the appropriate recruitment checks to ensure they were suitable for their role. People received their medicines as prescribed.
People and their relatives spoke positively about the care they received and referred to staff being kind, caring and friendly. People were placed at the centre of their care and people told us they felt listened to and valued by staff by the staff who supported them. People told us staff always respected their privacy and dignity when providing care and where supported to develop their independence.
Staff understood what was important to people and delivered care in the way they wished. Care records reflected people’s care needs and were personalised and regularly reviewed. There was systems in place to record and investigate complaints and concerns and issues were dealt with appropriately.
The management of the service was well-led. People were supported by caring committed staff. Staff said they felt supported and listened to by management. Staff were confident in their roles and were aware of their responsibilities and said they had access to support and training they needed.
Effective quality audit checks were in place and completed regularly to monitor the quality of the service provided. People provided feedback on an ongoing basis and a yearly survey took place.
People and their relatives had confidence in the way the service was run.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
We inspected Olive Tree on 13 November 2015. Olive Tree Services is a small family run domiciliary care service based in Witney, Oxfordshire. This was an announced inspection. This was the first time this service has been inspected at this location.
There was a registered manager in post at the service. 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 time of our inspection, the service was applying for a shared registration with another senior member of the team.
The home was run by a manager whose vision for the service was to run high quality care for people in their own homes. The manager had a desire to motivate staff and train them to fulfil their potential and support the service in achieving this vision. There was a day to day monitoring of quality due to the level of involvement from the manager with their senior staff. There was also formal monitoring through discussion with people that use the service and the monitoring of care files.
People were protected from the risk of harm and abuse by staff that understood their responsibilities in relation to safeguarding. Staffing levels were sufficient to meet people’s needs. People’s needs were assessed and risks associated with their needs were managed through clear guidance and staff that understood and followed that guidance. People who required support with medicines received their medicines when required.
People benefited from a culture that valued choice and had a clear policy of choice and decision making. There was also a good understanding within the service with regard to the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. MCA is the legal framework that protects people’s right to make their own decisions. We have recommended the service familiarise themselves with the MCA Code of Practise.
Staff felt supported and had access to regular supervision and appraisal. There was also adequate training for staff and opportunities to develop professionally. People had access to appropriate health professionals which was clearly planned and people also received a varied and healthy diet if providing food was part of their planned care.
Staff were described as caring by people and their relatives who thought they were outstanding. The services commitment to high quality care meant they would go above and beyond. Peoples independence was supported and their privacy and dignity were respected. People who were at end of life were supported by staff who were passionate about ensuring people and their families at that stage in their life recived the best possible care and support.
People benefited from a service that had a person centred culture where their needs were assessed and reviewed. When people’s needs changed the service responded. People views were seen as important and feedback was used to improve the service.