Olive Tree Services

Updated 7 November 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 12 September 2018 and was announced. We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection site visit because we needed to be sure the registered manager would be in the office to assist the inspection. The inspection team consisted on one inspector and an Expert by Experience who made telephone calls to people and their relatives. An Expert-by-Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Before the inspection we reviewed information we held about the service, including notifications of any accidents or incidents. Notifications are changes, events or incidents the registered provider is legally obliged to send us within required timescales. The provider had sent a Provider Information Return (PIR) before the inspection. This is information we require providers to send us to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

On the day of the inspection we met with the provider (who is also the registered manager), and spoke with two care staff and the training manager. The Expert by Experience spoke with three people and seven relatives on the telephone to seek their views. We also visited two people at their home to review records where the care was delivered. We spent time looking at records, which included four people's support plans. We looked at four staff recruitment and supervision records and reviewed the training schedule. We examined information relating to the management of the service, such as quality assurance audits and reports. We also looked at policies and procedures relating to the governance of the service.

Following the inspection, we contacted staff from the service and had feedback from six staff. We asked health and social care professionals if they had any information to share with us about the services provided at the home. We heard back from two external professionals and used this information in our judgement.

Updated 7 November 2018

We undertook an announced inspection of Olive Tree Services on 12 September 2018.

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.