We carried out a review of the data available to us about Olive Place 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 Place, you can give feedback on this service.
Olive Place is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The service provides care for up to three people with mental health needs and there were three people using the service when we visited. The home is a residential property and communal areas include a lounge, dining and kitchen seating area and a separate smoking room. People had access to a secure garden.
At the time of our inspection there was no registered manager 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. The previous manager had recently left the service and a new manager had been appointed and was working at the service when we visited. They were in the process of submitting their application to be the registered manager to the CQC.
Risk assessments and care plans contained a good level of information for care staff about known risks and guidance about how they were expected to mitigate these. However, we found mental health care plans were not always in place where required.
People were protected from abuse because staff understood how to keep them safe, including an understanding of the processes they should follow if an allegation of abuse was made. People received their medicines safely. There were enough suitable staff to meet people's needs.
People told us and we observed that staff were kind and patient. Staff demonstrated an understanding of people’s life histories and current circumstances and supported people to meet their individual needs. Care staff ensured people's privacy and dignity was respected and promoted and people confirmed this was happening.
People were supported with their nutritional needs. Care records contained information about people’s dietary needs. Care was delivered in line with relevant legislation and standards.
Staff were aware of their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Care records were signed by people using the service giving consent to their care and support.
People told us they were involved in decisions about their care and received the support they wanted.
Complaints were investigated and responded to in a timely manner. People were supported to engage in activity programmes.
Staff received training to ensure they had the skills and knowledge required to effectively support people. There was an induction programme for new staff which prepared them for their role. However, care staff had not received regular, formal supervision sessions in approximately six months.
Quality assurance processes were thorough. The acting manager was in the process of completing various audits after being appointed.
The provider had a vision to deliver high-quality care and support. Staff demonstrated that they were clear about the values of the organisation and how these supported their work.
We carried out this comprehensive inspection on 8 and 9 October 2015. The inspection was unannounced. The last inspection of this service on 24 October 2013 found no breaches of regulation.
Olive Place is a residential care home in Deptford, South East London. It provides accommodation and personal care for people with mental health needs. The maximum number accommodated is three people. The home is a two-storey terraced property located on a residential street.
The home had 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.
Risks assessments were in place to safeguard people from avoidable harm. Staff knew how to protect people from abuse and procedures to follow should abuse be suspected. Medicines were kept securely and people received medicines as prescribed.
Staff were supported to provide good care for people. There were enough staff available to meet people’s needs. Staff received supervision and training. Staff team meetings were held regularly.
People’s health needs were assessed and they were supported to access healthcare services.
People were supported to have sufficient food and drink.
People and their families told us that staff were kind and caring. Staff knew people well and supported them with their independence. People’s rights were protected in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberties Safeguards.
People’s privacy and dignity were protected. Care records were personalised and reflected current needs and aspirations. Families felt informed and involved. People felt that staff knew and understood them.
The provider had quality monitoring systems in place. People understood how to make a complaint. The provider sought the views of people, families and staff to improve service provision.
We carried out this visit to assess if the provider had taken action to rectify the issues we had found at our last inspection in May 2013, relating to staff supervision and appraisal, and quality assurance.
On this visit we found all staff were receiving regular supervision. Annual appraisal dates had been identified, and we were told by the senior on duty that at the same time staff training and development needs would be discussed.
We saw that the provider had introduced a number of systems to regularly monitor the quality of the service being provided. This included seeking the views of people using the service and their relatives.
We saw that each person had a care plan in place. People were involved in their care planning and signed in agreement to the content of their plans. Staff reviewed care plans every month. We found that the personal records for people using the service, including those for medication, were up to date.
Staff had undergone recent training in areas such fire safety, first aid and food hygiene. However we found that they were not being supported through regular supervision or an annual appraisal.
There were systems in place to carry out regular health and safety checks of the home, but there were no systems in place to regularly assess the quality of the care being provided.
A Social worker told us that they were satisfied with the service their client received. They said that the staff were supportive, care plans were regularly updated and staff were quick to respond to any deterioration in their client's health.
The provider wrote to us on 22 August 2012, and said that it would take action to become compliant within two weeks. At this inspection on 14 December 2012, we found that there were still aspects of the service that were not meeting the required standard. Some staff had still not attended some of their mandatory training, which meant that people were not cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard.
We also found that some care records required updating, to ensure that people were protected from the risk of unsafe and inappropriate care because accurate and appropriate records were not maintained.
The service ensured that people were supported to have good nutrition. Those at risk of poor nutrition were identified with referrals made to relevant health professionals.
One person described their confidence in the service, they said, "I like it here, we are safe and have comfortable rooms, there is always a member of staff present 24 hours a day if needed".
Staff practice was respectful, and there was an emphasis on promoting dignity and privacy in the service.
People told us that they were encouraged to do as much as possible for themselves. They said that this helped them to keep active and to develop more independent living skills.