CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Oliver Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Medicines guidance and records were not always clear or complete. Staffing levels needed review, and information about known risks was not always shared when people moved between services.
- Effective?
- Good
- People were supported to make choices and access healthcare. Staff had relevant training, supervision and support.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff knew people well and treated them with patience, privacy and dignity. People's independence and views were promoted.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed and reviewed when needs changed. Activities were available, but some people and relatives said they were not always frequent or individual enough.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The management team was described as approachable and acted promptly on issues identified. Audits, feedback and an independent annual quality review were used to monitor the service.
What inspectors found, November 2017
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, effective care, but safety, medicines and staffing needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 12 September 2017. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, staff, relatives and social care professionals. They observed care and reviewed care plans, risk assessments, medicines records, maintenance files and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall. Effective, caring, responsive and well-led were all rated Good. Safe was rated Requires Improvement because medicines records and guidance were not always clear, staffing levels needed review, and important risk information was not always shared when people moved between services.
Inspectors found detailed care plans, trained staff, support with healthcare, respectful relationships and systems for complaints and quality checks. The manager took prompt action on several issues during and after the inspection, including improving medicine storage and information-sharing.
Detailed care planning
Care plans covered people's support needs, preferences and risks. They were reviewed and updated, with people's views included.
“Risk assessments were very detailed, individualised, and included diverse needs, such as the risk of exploitation, self-harm, harm to others, suicide, absconding, and neglect.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw warm relationships. People said staff were patient, kind and respectful of their privacy and dignity.
“People told us that staff were kind and caring.” from the report
Training and healthcare support
Staff received training, induction and supervision. People were supported to access a range of health professionals and attend appointments.
“People were supported by well trained, skilled staff.” from the report
Open management
People, relatives and staff felt able to raise concerns. The management team used audits, surveys and external reviews to identify improvements.
“The management team had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and to identify areas for improvement.” from the report
Medicine records and storage
seriousSome medicine records were illegible or incomplete. Guidance for as-required medicines did not always explain when they should be given, and temperature-sensitive medicines were not stored in a designated monitored fridge.
“Clear and accurate records were not always being kept of medicines administered by staff.” from the report
Information about known risks
seriousAfter the inspection, the service reported an incident in which risks were not shared when a person moved between services, and a serious incident occurred. The manager introduced a consent-to-share risk assessment.
“The risks associated with their behaviour had not been shared with other professionals and a serious incident occurred.” from the report
Staffing capacity
needs fixingTwo experienced staff had recently left. Staff covered shifts, and one care worker spent much of the morning covering the cook's absence, leaving little spare capacity.
“There was therefore little spare capacity to deal with any issues that might arise.” from the report
Water safety assessment
minorThe system for managing legionella risks was in place, but the risk assessment did not clearly set out responsibilities, monitoring frequency or target temperatures.
“However, the risk assessment needed to be more robust.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to medicine records, as-required medicine guidance and medicine storage since this inspection?
- 02How do you now make sure known risks are shared safely when someone moves to or from the home?
- 03How are staffing levels calculated when people's needs change, staff are absent or appointments and activities take place?
- 04What regular walks, outings and other activities are available for someone with my relative's individual needs?
- 05How is the water safety risk assessment kept up to date, and who is responsible for monitoring it?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions and the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 November 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 Oliver Court
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- November 2017Goodcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 September 2016.
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
13 live-in carers within about an hour of Norfolk
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 £990 to £1,120 a week. 9 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
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.