Olive Tree House

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 with a breach in the legal regulation of safe care and treatment. At this assessment, the rating has remained good. Improvements were found at this assessment and the provider was no longer in breach of regulation. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 72 (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. Managers and staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

The provider recorded incidents and accidents, which included details of the incident and the action taken and the outcome. The provider took appropriate action as required such as notifying the relevant healthcare organisations. For example, a recent monthly audit identified a high number of pressure sores for one person which led to referrals to a healthcare organisation, a review of equipment and further staff training.

Systems were in place to support staff to report and record safety concerns and events when these arose. Managers investigated concerns and events and used the learning from these to support staff to continually improve their practice, reduce risk and keep people safe.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. Professional feedback received highlighted the good quality of care provided to people.

Before people started to use the service, an initial assessment was carried out of their needs. This included all aspects of care, such as the person’s mobility, their nutritional needs, personal hygiene, medicines, and social lifestyle. The management team obtained as much information as possible from people and their relatives to ensure they had enough information to enable them to meet people’s needs. This helped to ensure people received care from staff who understood their health conditions.

We observed kind, patient, and caring interactions. Staff were responsive when people needed support and care. We observed people to be safe.

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 who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse. People told us they felt safe. The provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening. The service had policies and procedures in place for safeguarding adults. Staff were aware of their safeguarding responsibilities. This subject was discussed during staff meetings and supervisions. A staff member told us, “We have created a culture where everything has to be reported every day, even a small scratch, staff will report it straight away.”

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected their rights when delivering care and treatment. If people lacked capacity to make specific decisions, capacity assessments and best interest decisions had been completed

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. At our last inspection, we found systems were not always in place to effectively assess and manage risks to people while they received a service. During this assessment, we found risks about people’s safety were assessed to ensure they were supported to remain as safe as possible.

Risks to people were assessed and monitored. Each person had a range of risk assessments specific to them. These included environmental risks, and any risks related to their health and support needs. For example, guidance was in place to direct staff to manage risks regarding epilepsy. Where staff had identified a risk, there was guidance in place to address how the risk could be prevented or minimised. For example, when people were supported out in the community. Risk assessments were reviewed on a 6 monthly basis or more regularly if there was a change in the risk to the person. Staff knew about people’s health needs and ensured they were safe when providing personal care. Support plans contained clear instructions for staff to follow. Care plans and risk management plans were reviewed and updated regularly by staff. Staff said risk assessments contained enough detail for them to support people safely. One staff member told us, “We have enough information about risks and how to manage them. All the information is in the risk assessment.”

During our assessment we found staff supported people safely and appropriate equipment was available if people needed assistance. When people were at risk of falls the home took appropriate action to mitigate future risks.

Personal emergency evacuation plans were in place. These are used by staff in the event of an emergency. The plans on the care planning system did not have enough detail, however the registered manager informed us these were currently being reviewed and updated. The plans we looked at in the fire grab bag provided clear information for staff on how to support people to leave the building in the event of an emergency.

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 environment was clean, tidy, and hygienic. Leaders were proactive to ensure repairs and maintenance issues were resolved promptly to minimise any impact to people. The environment was homely, and each person’s room was personalised to meet their needs and decoration preferences. There was a clear and established cleaning schedule with monitoring systems in place.

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. Staff had completed appropriate training to do their jobs safely. The provider did not always make sure staff had their supervision when it was due.

Supervision was not always carried out in line with the provider’s supervision policy. Some staff had not had supervision in 3 months in line with the provider’s policy. The registered manager told us they were working hard to rectify this.

However, there were enough staff to meet people’s care needs. Staff had the skills and confidence to provide person centred holistic care. Staff had been safely recruited and staff received support from managers to ensure the care being provided was high quality. One member of staff told us, “There are enough staff here, we have bank staff that we use, if someone phones in sick.”

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.

The provider had an infection control policy and procedures in place to manage infections. The registered manager completed regular infection prevention control (IPC) audits to minimise the risk of infections. Staff received training in IPC practices and personal protective equipment (PPE) was made available for staff.

The provider made sure medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities, and preferences. Medicines were stored securely, and records of medicines held by the service matched the stock levels we checked. PRN protocols were in place for medicines prescribed for using ‘as and when required’ and body maps were used to guide staff when administering topical medicines.

People were supported to take their medicines safely by staff who had received training to do so. The registered manager had systems in place to check medicines were being given safely, this included completing audits and checking staff competency.