CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Olive Place
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and medicines were administered safely. Inspectors found that two people did not have specific mental health care plans to guide staff about risks linked to their conditions.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had relevant training and new staff received an induction. However, formal supervision to check staff competence had been delayed for six months.
- Caring?
- Good
- People described staff as kind and caring. Staff knew people's histories, respected their privacy and dignity, and supported their independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care records described people's preferences and support needs. People were involved in care planning, activities, shopping and community visits, and complaints were investigated and answered promptly.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had quality checks, residents' meetings and systems for acting on feedback and incidents. There was no registered manager at the time, but a new manager was working there and was applying to become registered.
What inspectors found, March 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, but some mental health plans and staff supervision were missing or delayed.
Inspectors visited the home without notice on 22 January 2018. They spoke with all three people living there, two care workers, the manager and one person's social worker. They also checked care records, staff records and management records.
The home supports up to three people with mental health needs. Inspectors found that people were safe, treated with kindness and involved in their care. Medicines were managed safely, staffing was sufficient on the inspection day, and people were supported with food, healthcare, activities and community visits.
There were two weaknesses. Two people did not have specific mental health care plans, although staff had other information about their needs. Formal staff supervision had also been delayed for about six months. The home was rated Good in all five areas and remained Good compared with the previous inspection in 2015.
Safe medicines
Inspectors found that medicines were stored, administered and checked safely. Records matched the medicines held and staff had suitable training.
“People's medicines were managed and administered safely.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People said staff were kind and caring. Staff understood people's personal histories and respected their privacy and dignity.
“People told us they were treated with kindness and compassion by the care workers who supported them.” from the report
Personalised support
Care records included people's likes, dislikes, routines and wishes. People were involved in decisions about their care and supported to maintain independence.
“Care records were personalised and described how people preferred to be supported.” from the report
Activities and community access
People were supported to take part in activities and visit places they chose, such as shops, the gym, the cinema and London attractions.
“People were supported to access the community by going to places of their choice such as the local shops, the gym, or cinema or a London attraction.” from the report
Open management
People and staff spoke positively about the new manager. The home had systems for meetings, complaints, audits and learning from incidents.
“The service promoted and supported an open culture.” from the report
Mental health plans missing
seriousTwo people did not have specific mental health care plans explaining how staff should support them with risks linked to their conditions. The manager said these plans were intended but had not yet been completed.
“However, we did not find mental health care plans for two people using the service who had mental health issues.” from the report
Staff supervision delayed
needs fixingFormal supervision sessions were meant to happen every two months, but staff had not received them for about six months. The manager knew about the delay and was arranging the sessions.
“formal supervision of their competence to carry out their work had been delayed by a period of six months.” from the report
- 01Have the two missing mental health care plans now been completed, and how are they reviewed?
- 02How often do staff now receive formal supervision, and when was each person's most recent session?
- 03Who is currently responsible for managing the home while the new manager's registration application is being processed?
- 04How do you make sure staffing levels are safe when only one staff member is on duty?
- 05How are people's views about activities, meals and care recorded and acted on?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions; all five ratings remained Good, as at the previous inspection in 2015. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 March 2018 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 Place
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 22 November 2010.
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 Lewisham
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 £950 to £1,260 a week. 82 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She cared for my mum with Alzheimer's with endless patience and kindness, always arriving with a smile and a positive attitude”
“Usha rapidly became 'one of the family' and is sorely missed.”
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.