CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Olive House Home for Older People
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Risks were not always assessed or monitored safely. Inspectors found infection control shortfalls, unclear emergency evacuation records, incomplete food and fluid records, and asked the home to review medicine storage and fridge temperature checks.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- Staff did not receive supervision in line with the provider's policy, and some required DoLS referrals had not been made. Training and competency checks were generally in place, and people received support with their health needs.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind and considerate. People were supported to maintain their privacy, dignity, independence and ability to express their views.
- Responsive?
- Requires improvement
- Complaints were not always recorded or dealt with in line with the home's policy. Care records and information about communication needs were not always detailed or person centred, although people could make everyday choices and join activities.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Governance systems were not reliable. Records and audits were incomplete, inaccurate or not up to date, and some identified problems had not been resolved, although feedback about management was positive.
What inspectors found, June 2023
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care and adequate staffing, but safety, records, complaints and management systems were not reliable enough.
This was an unannounced inspection over 10, 11 and 16 May 2023. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff, visited both floors, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
People generally felt safe and staff were kind and respectful. Staffing levels were adequate. People received support with their health needs, food, activities and visits. However, risk records, infection control, medicines storage and food and fluid records needed improvement.
Staff supervision was not happening as required. Complaints were not always properly recorded or handled. Care records and management audits were incomplete, out of date or not strong enough to identify and fix problems. The home breached regulations relating to safe care, complaints, governance and staffing.
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw staff speaking kindly to people and respecting their privacy and dignity. People and relatives gave positive feedback about the care.
“Care staff were kind and considerate when speaking to people.” from the report
Adequate staffing
Inspectors found enough staff on duty to meet people's needs. Recruitment checks were described as safe, although some recruitment paperwork needed improvement.
“We found adequate number of staff on duty to meet people's needs.” from the report
Health support
People's health needs were assessed and staff worked with a range of health and social care professionals.
“Staff ensured people were supported with their healthcare needs.” from the report
Activities and family visits
An activities coordinator arranged a range of activities, and people were supported to receive visits from loved ones.
“People were supported to take part in activities.” from the report
Risks and records
seriousRisk assessments and records were not always accurate or complete. Problems included missing or incorrect emergency evacuation information, inconsistent weight monitoring and incomplete food and fluid records.
“Risks were not always appropriately assessed and monitored.” from the report
Infection control
seriousInspectors found unsafe practices in bathrooms and laundry areas, and cleaning records were missing or incomplete. This placed people at risk of infection and significant harm.
“Infection prevention and control measures were not always safe.” from the report
Staff supervision
seriousA number of staff had not received recent supervision as required by the provider's policy. The provider planned to address this within three months.
“Staff were not supervised in line with the provider's policy.” from the report
Complaints handling
needs fixingComplaints and family concerns were resolved, but they were not always logged properly and records did not always show what action had been taken.
“Complaints and concerns raised by family members were resolved, the complaints process had not been followed.” from the report
- 01What has been changed to make risk assessments, emergency evacuation plans, weight checks and food and fluid records complete and up to date?
- 02How have you fixed the infection control problems with communal toiletries, wet towels, loofahs, cleaning records and unlabelled clothing?
- 03Have all staff now received the supervision required by your policy, and how will you keep this up to date?
- 04How are complaints now logged, investigated and recorded, including the action taken to resolve them?
- 05What checks now make sure care records and management audits identify and correct problems promptly?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control under Safe; the previous overall rating was Good on 12 September 2019. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 June 2023 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, January 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control, safe visiting arrangements and continued family contact during the pandemic.
This was a targeted inspection on 20 January 2021. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control measures during the coronavirus pandemic. The inspection was announced with 24 hours' notice.
Inspectors were assured that the home was preventing infections, using protective equipment safely, following social distancing and shielding rules, and admitting people safely. They also found access to testing, good cleaning and hygiene, suitable ventilation, and up-to-date infection control policies.
The home had stopped non-essential visits in line with government guidance. A visitors' pod had been installed, and people were supported to keep in touch with relatives through video calls, telephone calls and written communication.
The service was inspected but not rated. This report does not provide an overall quality rating or ratings for all five CQC questions.
Infection control
The home had clear infection prevention procedures. Staff understood them, used PPE appropriately and disposed of it safely.
“The registered manager had established robust infection prevention and control procedures which were understood and adhered to by the staff.” from the report
Family contact
The home recognised the emotional effect of restricted visits and used several ways to help people stay in touch with relatives.
“Considerable emphasis had been placed on finding different ways to enable people to maintain contact with their families which included video calls, telephone calls or written communication.” from the report
Clean surroundings
Inspectors found the home clean and hygienic, with enhanced cleaning schedules and suitable ventilation.
“The premises looked clean and hygienic throughout and there were enhanced cleaning schedules in place and adequate ventilation.” from the report
Staffing continuity
The report says there were enough staff to maintain continuity of support if there was a staff shortage.
“There were sufficient staff to provide continuity of support should there be a staff shortage.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How does the visitors' pod work now, and what arrangements are used if indoor visits are restricted?
- 02How will you help my relative keep in touch with family if they cannot receive visitors?
- 03How often are people living in the home and staff tested, and how are the results managed?
- 04How do you make sure PPE supplies remain plentiful and that staff use and dispose of PPE safely?
- 05How would you maintain continuity of support if there was a staff shortage?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; the service was inspected but not rated and other areas were not covered. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 January 2021 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 Home for Older People
4 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- June 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Olive House Home for Older People →
- January 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Olive House Home for Older People →
- September 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2014Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 February 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
85 live-in carers within about an hour of Lancashire
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 £1,260 a week. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
“Thanks to Tracy, Dad was always immaculately dressed and clean, his meals were all home cooked and nutritionally well balanced and his home was always kept really clean and tidy.”
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.