CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Olive Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found safeguarding systems, risk assessments, infection controls, safe recruitment and enough staff. However, medicine storage temperatures and some instructions for 'as and when' medicines were not always recorded properly.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had the skills and training needed, and people received suitable support with eating, drinking, healthcare and legal decisions about their care.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors saw staff treating people with dignity, patience and respect, while supporting their independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans recorded people's needs, preferences, histories and communication needs. People could choose whether to join activities, maintain relationships and record their wishes for end of life care.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The management structure was clear and staff felt supported, but some quality checks were not effective. Paper and electronic care plans did not always agree, daily checks were missed and medicine audits failed to identify the problems found.
What inspectors found, June 2022
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, but the home’s leadership and quality checks require improvement.
The inspection took place in May 2022. One inspector visited the home, spoke with people, a relative and staff, and reviewed care, medicine, recruitment and management records. The home was supporting 34 people, although it can care for up to 40.
Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment and good systems for safeguarding, infection control and managing risks. People were supported by trained staff and received help with food, drink, healthcare and personal choices. People and relatives spoke positively about the care, kindness and respect shown by staff.
The main weaknesses were in management checks and records. Paper care plans did not always match the more up-to-date electronic plans. Daily walkaround checks were not completed regularly, and medicine audits did not identify issues with storage temperatures and 'as and when' medicine instructions.
The overall rating was Good. Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive were rated Good, while Well-led was rated Requires Improvement. The report says this was the first inspection since the service registered in 2020, although the service had previously been rated Good under an earlier provider.
Enough trained staff
Inspectors found staffing levels were sufficient and staff responded promptly to people's needs. Recruitment checks were completed and staff training was up to date.
“We saw there were enough staff working to meet people's needs and staff were spending meaningful time with people.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People were treated with warmth, dignity and patience. Staff knew people's histories, preferences and individual needs.
“We observed staff were caring, kind and patient with people, predicted what they needed and were sensitive to their wishes.” from the report
Choice and involvement
Staff supported people to make everyday choices and followed their preferences. People could choose whether to take part in activities.
“People told us they received care how they wished and in line with their preferences.” from the report
Support with health and nutrition
The home identified nutritional risks and worked with healthcare professionals when people needed additional support. Care records included guidance about food, drink and health needs.
“Staff understood people's individual risks relating to food and drink and supported people to have their meals in a way that minimised the risks.” from the report
Positive relationships with families
Relatives said they could raise concerns and felt they would be taken seriously. Staff contacted relatives about changes in care and involved them in decisions.
“If I had a concern, I know who to raise it with, and am confident it would be taken seriously and acted on.” from the report
Medicine records and checks
needs fixingMedicine storage temperatures were not always recorded, and instructions for some 'as and when' medicines were incomplete. Medicine audits had not found these problems.
“Medicines were not always stored, managed and administered in line with good practice guidelines.” from the report
Care records did not always match
needs fixingPaper care plans were not always as up to date or accurate as electronic plans. This could make it harder for staff to rely on one consistent record of a person's needs.
“People also had a paper-based care plan, which did not always reflect the most up to date information.” from the report
Missed management checks
needs fixingDaily walkaround checks were not completed regularly. The report says these weaknesses did not place people at immediate risk, but the home agreed to address them.
“Daily walkaround checks had not been routinely completed and medication audits had not identified the shortfalls we found.” from the report
- 01Have the paper and electronic care plans now been checked and brought fully up to date?
- 02How are medicine storage temperatures, including fridge temperatures, recorded and checked each day?
- 03How do you make sure 'as and when' medicine instructions state when to give the medicine, why it is needed and the correct dose?
- 04Are daily walkaround checks now completed routinely, and who reviews the results?
- 05What evidence can you show that the changes promised after this inspection have been completed?
This was the first inspection of the newly registered service and covered all five key questions, including infection prevention and control arrangements for COVID-19. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 June 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.
Every inspection of Olive Lodge
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- June 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 January 2020.
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 Leeds
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 £1,250 a week. 89 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“Took his time to learn about me read my care plan and to listen to me. great companionship with lots of laughing.”
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.