CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Oliver House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks, medicines, infection control, equipment and accidents were managed safely. They also found enough staff and safe recruitment processes.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had suitable training and ongoing support. People received appropriate help with food, drink, healthcare and decisions about their care.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind and respectful. People's privacy, dignity, independence, choices and diverse needs were supported.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and based on people's histories, needs and preferences. The home provided activities, community links, communication support and end-of-life care.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager used audits and feedback to monitor quality and make improvements. Inspectors found an open culture and effective partnership working.
What inspectors found, November 2023
Oliver House was rated Good; inspectors found significant improvements and safe, kind, personalised care.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 18 October 2023. One inspector spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care and reviewed care, medicines and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found medicines were managed safely, risks were assessed, staffing was sufficient and the home was clean and well maintained.
People were treated with kindness and respect. Staff understood people's needs and preferences. There were activities, links with the local community and support for people's end-of-life wishes.
The previous rating was Requires Improvement, published in July 2022, with breaches of regulations. Inspectors found significant improvements and said the home was no longer in breach.
Safer medicines
Medicines records and guidance had improved since the last inspection. Medicines were stored and managed safely, with systems to identify and correct errors.
“At this inspection, MAR's were now completed appropriately and front sheet profiles were in place for everyone using the service.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People were supported by staff who understood them and treated them with kindness. Staff respected privacy, dignity and personal choices.
“Interactions between staff and people were kind and nurturing.” from the report
Personalised activities
The home offered group and one-to-one activities, trips out and opportunities to stay involved with families and the local community.
“A comprehensive activity programme was in place which took into consideration people's needs and choices.” from the report
Improved oversight
Management audits identified actions and checked that improvements were completed. Feedback from people, relatives and staff was encouraged.
“The provider had a clear management structure that monitored the quality of care to drive improvements in service delivery.” from the report
Refurbishment was unfinished
minorSome refurbishment plans were still in progress, including changes to flooring, signage and the outdoor area. Ask what has now been completed.
“Refurbishment plans were in progress to update the service and improve accessibility and infection control practices.” from the report
Review of mealtime items
minorThe manager was considering whether plastic cups and crockery were being used only by people who needed them. Ask what decision was made.
“For example, some plastic cups and crockery were used by people at mealtimes.” from the report
- 01Have all the planned refurbishment changes to flooring, signage and the outdoor area now been completed?
- 02What is the current policy on using plastic cups and crockery, and are they used only where needed?
- 03How are monthly risk reviews and medicines audits checked to make sure improvements are maintained?
- 04How will the home support my relative's preferred activities, interests and links with family or the local community?
- 05How will my relative's wishes about end-of-life care be recorded and reviewed?
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection checking previous warning notices and the overall quality of the home, with all five ratings given as Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 November 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, July 2022
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found risks in medicines, staff training, person-centred care and oversight.
This was an unannounced inspection on 3 May 2022. One inspector and a nurse specialist reviewed care records, medicine records, staff files, policies and other management records. They also spoke with staff and sought further information from the provider.
Inspectors found problems with medicines, risk assessments, fire evacuation plans, infection control and some repairs. Staff numbers and recruitment checks were suitable, but training and clinical support were not always sufficient. Care plans did not always contain the information staff needed about people's health, communication, behaviour, preferences or end of life care.
People were sometimes treated kindly, and relatives were generally positive about staff. However, dignity was not always protected. The home was rated Requires Improvement in all five areas, meaning care was not consistently safe, effective, caring, responsive or well-led at the time of the inspection.
Staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Recruitment checks included references and DBS checks, and regular agency staff were used for consistency.
“There was enough staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Health professional links
People were supported to access health professionals, including for nutrition, mobility, equipment and medical needs. Health care staff expressed confidence in the home's ability to meet people's needs.
“People were supported to access relevant external health professionals when they needed to.” from the report
Activities and family contact
People had access to daily activities and some one-to-one support. Relatives could visit and use technology to stay in contact when visits were not possible.
“There was an activities staff member who provided a programme of events to support people's interests.” from the report
Positive feedback from relatives
Relatives generally described staff and care positively. Inspectors also saw staff treating people kindly on some occasions.
“Relatives we spoke with told us they felt positive about the staff and the care their family member received.” from the report
Medicine safety
seriousMedicine records and instructions were incomplete or out of date. This included missing medicine profiles, unclear patch records and missing information about creams.
“People's medicines was not managed safely.” from the report
Risk and emergency planning
seriousRisk assessments did not consistently cover health conditions and changing mobility needs. Seven people had no personal evacuation plan, and three people's plans needed updating.
“Fire safety records had not been maintained.” from the report
Staff training
seriousTraining and induction were not sufficient for the role. Inspectors observed poor moving and handling practice, and staff lacked training in areas including behaviour support and end of life care.
“Staff had not received the required training to support their role.” from the report
Person-centred information
seriousCare plans did not always include people's communication methods, preferences, routines, behaviour guidance or end of life wishes. This could make care inconsistent, especially when new or agency staff were involved.
“Care plans lacked person-centred information.” from the report
Management oversight
seriousAudits identified some problems but actions were not completed promptly. Out-of-date policies and weak oversight meant risks and needed improvements were missed.
“There was a lack of oversight by the provider to ensure the required quality performance was being completed and maintained.” from the report
- 01What has been changed to ensure every person's medicines have a complete profile, clear PRN instructions and accurate records for patches and creams?
- 02How have you updated risk assessments for diabetes, mobility, pressure care and fire evacuation?
- 03What training and competency checks have staff completed, especially for moving and handling, behaviour support and end of life care?
- 04How are care plans now recording communication needs, personal preferences, behaviour triggers and end of life wishes?
- 05What evidence can you show that audits now lead to completed actions and that policies, CCTV arrangements and staff supervision are up to date?
This was the first comprehensive inspection of the newly registered service and covered all five key questions, including infection prevention and control under Safe. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 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.
Every inspection of Oliver House
7 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- November 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2022Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- June 2016Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2015Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- June 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 May 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
62 live-in carers within about an hour of Derbyshire
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 £1,010 to £1,260 a week. 51 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
“We particularly appreciate the companionship Dawn gives in the evenings when she plays cards and Scrabble with my mother.”
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.