CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Olive House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were assessed and managed, medicines were handled safely, and infection control arrangements were in place. An allegation made during the inspection had not yet been fully investigated when the report was written.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- A restriction had not been recently reviewed even though the person said they no longer wanted it. Staff also lacked training about one significant health need.
- Caring?
- Good
- The report did not give a separate Caring rating as part of this focused inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Staff supported the person's choices, interests, relationships, holidays and daily routines. Communication needs were recorded and complaints were handled through a clear process.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had regular health, medicines and quality checks. Inspectors found a person-centred culture, staff who worked well together and involvement from relatives and outside professionals.
What inspectors found, July 2022
Olive House was rated Good overall, but inspectors found improvements were needed in effective care, staff training and reviewing a restriction.
The inspection took place on 20 June 2022 and was carried out by one inspector. They met the person living in the home, observed staff, spoke with staff and the manager, reviewed care and other records, and later spoke with a relative and a health and social care professional.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found safe medicines management, suitable risk assessments, a stable staff team, personalised activities and good support with healthcare. They also found a positive culture, regular checks on quality and good involvement from relatives.
Effective was rated Requires Improvement. A restriction that the person no longer wanted had not been reviewed recently, and staff had not received training about one significant health need. The overall rating stayed Good, but the report made two recommendations for improvement.
Personalised support
Staff supported the person's interests, independence and chosen lifestyle. The person was involved in everyday decisions and activities.
“Staff supported people to follow their individual interests and to develop their independence.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored securely and staff were trained and checked as competent before administering them. Monthly medicines audits were also carried out.
“Medicines were stored securely, and staff were trained to administer medicines and assessed for competence before doing so.” from the report
Stable staff team
Most staff had worked at the home for a long time and knew the person well. One-to-one care was always provided, with female staff employed according to the person's preference.
“The service provided a stable staff team to support the person's individual needs and preferences.” from the report
Good daily life
The person was supported with family and friends, pets, holidays, days out and interests such as photography and nature.
“The person living in the home had varied interests and there was evidence of this throughout the home.” from the report
Positive culture
Inspectors found that the home was centred on the person and that staff and relatives felt involved. The home reflected the person's needs and interests.
“The person living in the home was at the centre of the service.” from the report
Restriction not reviewed
needs fixingA restriction had been in place for several years without a recent review. The person had capacity to make the decision and said they no longer wanted the restriction.
“There was no recent review to check if this restriction was still appropriate and the person's views taken account of.” from the report
Staff training gap
needs fixingStaff had suitable general training, but had not been trained about one significant health condition affecting the person they supported. Inspectors recommended that this training be provided.
“However, staff had not been given any training in one significant need to ensure good understanding of how this affected their daily life.” from the report
Allegation awaiting investigation
needs fixingAn allegation was made during the inspection and had not been fully investigated by the time of the report. It was passed to the manager for action.
“An allegation was made during the inspection which had not yet been fully investigated.” from the report
- 01Has the restriction that the person no longer wanted been reviewed, and what decision was made?
- 02Have all staff now received training about the person's significant health condition?
- 03What was the outcome of the allegation that was still being investigated when the report was published?
- 04How are the person's choices and consent recorded when care or restrictions are discussed?
- 05How often are medicines, health and quality checks reviewed, and can families see how actions are followed up?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led; the Caring rating was not given in this report, and the overall rating used the previous inspection rating for any key question not inspected. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 July 2022 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, October 2017
Olive House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, respectful and personalised care, with a few records and policy details needing attention.
This was a comprehensive inspection of a care home registered for one person, mainly supporting an adult with a learning disability. Inspectors reviewed care plans, risk assessments, daily records, staff recruitment and training records, and the home’s policies. They also spoke with the person using the service, staff, the registered manager and a health and social care professional.
The home received a Good rating overall and was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, suitable training and good attention to the person’s choices, privacy, health and daily activities.
There were some small shortfalls. One medicine record had not been signed, a smoking risk assessment needed updating, and the complaints information needed correct CQC and Ombudsman details. The person also said staff were caring and kind only 'Sometimes', although inspectors observed positive and respectful interactions.
Personalised choices
The person helped decide their meals, activities, holidays, bedroom design and daily routines. Staff also encouraged independence with household tasks and visits to friends.
“The person using the service told us they decided what they wanted to do and would ask staff to come along.” from the report
Respectful support
Inspectors saw staff communicate positively and respect the person’s privacy and wishes. The person was given space to express their views.
“We observed that staff communicated positively with the person using the service and respected their privacy.” from the report
Staffing and training
There were enough staff to provide one-to-one care. Staff had induction, supervision, appraisals and refresher training relevant to their work.
“There were enough staff on duty to meet the needs of the person using the service.” from the report
Quality checks
The home used regular health and safety, medicines and quality audits. These checks identified that risk assessments needed review, and the report says this was corrected.
“These showed that in March 2017 the registered manager had picked up that not all risk assessments had been reviewed.” from the report
One medicine record was incomplete
needs fixingOne medicine administration record had not been signed to confirm that a medicine was given. The manager said the staff member would be reminded.
“Medicine administration records were up to date, apart from one entry which had not been signed as given.” from the report
Smoking risk assessment needed updating
minorThe manager had reviewed the smoking risk assessment but still needed to update it to reflect the person smoking fewer cigarettes.
“The registered manager told us they had recently reviewed the smoking risk assessment and now needed to update it” from the report
Complaints information needed correction
minorThe complaints policy was displayed, but its information about the CQC and Local Government Ombudsman was not correct and needed updating.
“The registered manager was made aware that this required updating to ensure that it contained the correct information in relation to the role of CQC and contact details of the Local Government Ombudsman.” from the report
Mixed personal feedback about kindness
minorThe person gave mixed feedback, saying staff were caring and kind only sometimes. Inspectors nevertheless observed positive interactions and said staff respected the person’s choices.
“The person using the service told us that staff were caring and kind, "Sometimes.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure every medicine administration record is signed immediately after medicines are given?
- 02Has the smoking risk assessment been updated to reflect the person’s current smoking pattern?
- 03Has the complaints policy been corrected with the right CQC and Local Government Ombudsman details?
- 04How do you check that the person feels staff are consistently caring and kind?
- 05How are the person’s choices about activities, holidays and independence included in their current care plan?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five ratings for a home registered for one person; the report is inconsistent about whether the visit was announced or unannounced and contains conflicting inspection-year entries. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 October 2017 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Olive House
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 March 2011.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Barnet
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £980 to £1,300 a week. 83 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“The quality of life that she's given my parents has been priceless. The peace of mind she's given my sisters and I, through a very difficult time, has been invaluable.”
“Folasade is really kind, patient and respectful, has a fantastic sense of humour and such a positive outlook on life.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.