OLIVE ROW CARE HOME

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

People were not in control of the planning of their care and support. We received mixed feedback from people and their relatives in relation to being listened to when raising concerns or complaint. We were not assured that all concerns and complaints were actioned and addressed to ensure people’s experiences improved. The provider did not actively seek to avoid discrimination of people without advocacy and to make reasonable adjustments to support equity in experience and outcomes.

This service scored 54 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People were not in control of the planning of their care and support. People and the relatives we spoke with had not been involved in the planning of their care and had not seen their care plans. People’s care did not always reflect their personal preferences or provided at a time that suited them. A person told us, “I always go to bed at 7.15pm, its not to my liking, but otherwise, I wouldn’t get done until 9.00pm as they [staff] have so many to do at night.” A visiting professional told us that a person’s care plan did not reflect the person’s current needs as it referred to how the person was prior to becoming unwell.

Staff used the electronic care recording system to record when they provided care. The system gave staff instructions when people required care, this was task orientated and relied on staff being available at the time care was due. The system showed care had not been recorded as being given for long periods, leaving people without regular pressure relief, personal care or drinks.

People had been offered showers or personal care, but people had to keep calling staff back to remind them they required their care. Some people complained of being hungry, in pain or wanting to mobilise, but all depended on staff to provide this care which was not always forthcoming at a time they needed them.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We received mixed feedback from people and their relatives in relation to being listened to when raising concerns or complaints and the opportunities they had to share feedback. Two people told us they had not been informed of residents’ meetings taking place. Some people and relatives told us their complaints and concerns were not always listened to or acted on. A relative told us of some personal items that had gone missing and said, “I spoke to four carers about this, and nothing happened. Then two weeks ago, I spoke to the senior and she knew nothing about this.” Relatives told us the manager did not always appear to be open to receive concerns or complaints and people and their relatives’ feared repercussions. A relative said, “The manager said if I am not happy with the cleaning I should speak to the cleaner and if I am not happy with the laundry, I should speak to the laundry person.”

Staff were concerned their complaints would not be used to improve the service and feared reprisals. Staff reported their concerns to other organisations as they told us they felt they would not be dealt with fairly by the provider. The manager told us any concerns reported to them verbally from people or relatives were dealt with directly by staff to prevent them becoming a complaint.

The provider had systems in place to enable people to share feedback and raise complaints about the care and support they received. This included a complaints process, residents’ meetings, relatives’ meetings and surveys. However, we were not assured that all concerns and complaints were actioned and addressed to ensure people’s experiences improved. For example, in a residents meeting on 5 January 2024, a person raised a concern that they are having to remind the nurses that their diabetic sensor on their arm needs changing every two weeks. A visiting health professional told us staff often forget to collect it or have it delivered, causing delays in replacement. This had not been documented on the concerns or complaints document that enabled the management team to keep track of individual concerns and complaints to ensure action was taken to improve people’s experiences and outcomes. In the same meeting, the people expressed a concern with the language barrier between people and staff. Action had not been taken to address this as we continued to find communication difficulties between people, relatives and staff.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

People cared for in bed, did not receive support to get out of bed regularly, had pressure ulcers or sore skin, did not receive showers or baths regularly and did not have the opportunity to join in on group activities. People who did not have relatives to advocate for them told us they were hungry, in pain, worried and said staff did not understand what they needed.

Leaders and staff were not alert to discrimination and inequality of people using their services. They did not proactively seek out ways to address these barriers to improve people’s experience, act on information about people's experiences and outcomes and allocate resources and opportunities to achieve equity. Staff did not understand they needed to communicate clearly with people to establish what they needed. Staff did not have all the skills to communicate effectively or understand the care people required to maintain their health and wellbeing. Some staff expressed frustration that some people were not facilitated to be out of bed every day to mobilise, socialise or take part in activities. They told us people had become withdrawn and less able.

The provider did not actively seek to avoid discrimination of people without advocacy and to make reasonable adjustments to support equity in experience and outcomes. There was no system in place to advocate for people who did not have relatives to ensure they were receiving care that was equal to others. People were at risk of not receiving care that met all of their physical, social and mental health needs. There was no system in place to establish people’s baseline and abilities. There was no expectation that people would be facilitated to take part in social activities or maintain their mobility.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.