Olive Tree Services

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. At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good.

This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 75 (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. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

People and staff were encouraged and supported to raise concerns, they felt confident they would be treated with compassion and understanding.

Staff told us they were updated about incidents and changes. Incidents and accidents were discussed in handovers, meetings and group supervisions.

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.

People’s assessments were detailed and accurate which enabled staff to support them safely. Staff were introduced to people before support was provided.

The provider worked with a number of professionals to ensure continuity of care within the service and made appropriate referrals to healthcare professionals. These included GPs, therapists and other healthcare professionals.

Staff knew people and their risks well and told us how they worked with professionals to keep people safe. For example, one person was supported by staff to attend regular therapy sessions, designed specifically for their condition.

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.

People using the service and their relatives told us they felt safe and were happy with their care. We were told, “Yes I am safe, all very good. They [staff] are very thoughtful, efficient and turn up on time” and “I’m safe, they [staff are good and their training is good.”

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

A risk management system was in place and risk assessments were held in care plans. These provided staff with guidance on how to manage the risk. However, not all risk assessments provided staff with sufficient guidance to keep people safe. For example, one person was in danger of falling. The risk assessment only guided staff the person ‘required support’. However, staff we spoke with were aware of this person’s support needs. One member of staff told us, “Overall, you can support people to understand andmanage risks to ensure they are person centred. It's often a collaboration, between the person, their close family and professionals who assist the individual to make sense of choices and facilitating these in the safest way possible, and, trying to avoid restrictions where possible.”

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

The provider carried out assessments of people’s home environments to identify and reduce any risks related to the delivery of care. Staff told us they checked the inspection dates and condition of equipment before use, and ensured it was the correct equipment for each person.

The provider had invested in technological solutions to aid the delivery of safe care. This included electronic care planning systems and mobile care applications. This helped to improve safety and the provider’s ability to monitor how care was delivered.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked well together to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

One staff member said, “We have enough staff.” Another told us, “Yes, I think we have more than enough staff to cover all people’s needs and care on a daily basis.”

People told us there were enough staff. We asked if staff were punctual. Their comments included, “[Staff are] never late. [Staff] stay for the full time” and “[Staff are] always on time. They [staff] stay for the time. Sometimes a few minutes over.”

The provider had robust recruitment systems in place to ensure people were supported by well trained, experienced staff. Background checks were conducted to ensure staff were safe to work with vulnerable people.

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.

Staff wore personal protective equipment (PPE) during personal care. Staff understood the need to wear PPE and how to manage the risk of infection. Infection control policies were in place and up to date.

Staff told us there were adequate supplies of PPE. One said, “Yes, plenty of PPE available, there's never a time where's there's a shortage. I have been fully trained how to use PPE correctly. “

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

People received their medicine as prescribed. Staff had been trained to administer medicines and their competency to do so was regularly checked. Records confirmed any medicine errors were reported and investigated. One person told us, “They [staff] support me with medication. I know what medication I am taking. I don’t need to ask them.”

People’s medicines were regularly reviewed by the GP and regular audits monitored medicines to help the service manage medicines efficiently.