Olivemede is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 33 older people including those living with dementia. There were 31 people living at the home when we visited. Accommodation is provided over two floors. All bedrooms were for single occupancy with some having en-suite facilities. There were communal areas, including lounge areas, two dining rooms and large garden areas for people and their guests to use whenever they wished. These gardens included areas with bedding plants, vegetables and a chicken coop.

At the previous inspection on 12 October 2016 the service was rated as requiring improvement. At this inspection we found that improvements had been made and sustained and the service is rated as ‘Good’.

At the time of this inspection there was a registered manager. However they had left on 3 June 2017 and were no longer in post. The home was being managed by a manager from the provider’s other service. The manager was in the process of adding Olivemede to their registration. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Risk assessments were in place to ensure that people could be safely supported at all times. Staff were knowledgeable about the procedures to ensure that people were protected from harm and would have no hesitation in reporting any concerns. People’s medicines were administered and managed safely as prescribed.

A sufficient number of suitably qualified and skilled staff were employed at the home. The provider’s recruitment process ensured that only staff, which had been deemed suitable to work with people at the home. Only those staff who were deemed suitable were employed following the completion of satisfactory recruitment checks.

The CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. DoLS applications had been submitted to, and in two cases authorised by, the relevant local authorities.

Staff respected and maintained people’s privacy at all times. People were provided with care and support as required and people only had to wait for a few minutes before having their care needs met. This meant that people’s care needs were met in a timely manner.

People’s assessed care and support needs were planned and met by staff who had a good understanding of how and when to provide people’s care. Staff encouraged and supported people to be as independent as possible. People had care records which provided staff with the level of detail required to help meet people’s assessed needs and to provide care for people which they could benefit from.

People were supported to access a range of healthcare professionals including a GP, dietician community nurse or chiropodist. These also included support to enable people to attend hospital and outpatient appointments

People were provided with a varied menu and had a range of meals and healthy options to choose from. There was a sufficient quantity of food and drinks and snacks made available to people. This included nutritional support for those people who required a pureed soft food or low sugar/fibre diet.

People received care from staff in a kind, compassionate and sensitive way. People were able to take part in a wide range of hobbies and pastimes including puzzles, chair exercises, trips out as well as being able to spend time on their own where this was their preference. This helped prevent the risk of people becoming socially isolated.

A compla

We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection of this service on 22 March 2016. At this inspection we found that there were two breaches of legal requirements. This was because people were not protected against the risks in the event of an emergency and that the provider had failed to notify the Care Quality Commission about important events that had taken place.

After the comprehensive inspection, the provider wrote to us to say what they would do to meet legal requirements in relation to the breaches.

We undertook this focused inspection to check that they had followed their plan and to confirm that they now met legal requirements. This report only covers our findings in relation to those requirements.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for ‘Olivemede’ on our website at www.cqc.org.uk’

Olivemede provides accommodation and personal care for up to 33 older people including those living with dementia. Accommodation is located over two floors. There were 26 people living in the home when we inspected.

At the time of this inspection there was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

At our focused inspection on 12 October 2016, we found that the provider had followed their plan which they had told us would be completed by 30 April 2016, and legal requirements had been met.

People’s risks were assessed and measures were in place to minimise the risk of harm occurring

Records showed that notifications had been submitted to the CQC in a timely manner.

Olivemede is registered to provide accommodation for up to 33 people who require nursing and personal care. At the time of our inspection there were 31 people living at the service. The service is located in the village of Yaxley and is close to local shops, amenities and facilities. Accommodation is provided on two floors. Bedrooms are single rooms with en suite facilities and access to the accommodation is provided by stairs and a lift to the first floor.

This unannounced inspection took place on 22 March 2016.

The service had a registered manager. However, they had left their post in March 2016. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Staff were knowledgeable about identifying and reporting any incident of harm should this ever occur. People were cared for and looked after by enough staff to support them with their individual needs. However, not all incidents had been reported to the CQC, and without delay. This limited the response external organisations could take if this was then required.

Satisfactory pre-employment checks were completed on staff before they were employed and allowed to work with people who used the service.

People were supported to take their medicines as prescribed and medicines were safely managed. Not all staff had been regularly assessed as being competent to safely administer people’s prescribed medicines. This put people at risk of not being safely administered their medicines. An effective induction process was in place to support new staff.

Risk assessments to help safely support people with risks to their health were in place and these were kept under review according to each person’s needs. However, we found that there were no risk assessments in place to safely support people in the event of an emergency. This put people at risk especially people those who relied on two members of staff to help them to mobilise.

The CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. The registered manager and staff were knowledgeable about when an assessment of people’s mental capacity was required. Appropriate applications had been made by the provider to lawfully deprive of their liberty. People using the service who currently met the criteria to be lawfully deprived of their liberty had applications and authorisations in place. However, not all staff had an understanding of the MCA and how a DoLS would be determined. This meant that there was a risk that people could be provided with care that was not in line with the relevant codes of practice.

People had sufficient quantities of their preferred food and drink choices including various snacks during the day. This included the provision and choice of appropriate diets for those people at an increased risk of malnutrition, dehydration or weight loss. However, there were missed opportunities for people to be as independent as they could have been at mealtimes.

People were supported to access a range of health care services and their individual health needs were met.

People were cared for and supported with their needs by kind and attentive staff. People were given as much opportunity as possible to be involved in planning and reviewing their care needs. People’s privacy and dignity was respected by staff.

Information was made available for people or their relatives who may have needed access to independent advocacy. People were given various opportunities to help identify and make key changes or suggestions about any aspects of their care. However, the investigation into their concerns, suggestions and complaints did not ensure that the

We undertook an unannounced focused inspection of Olivemede on 26 August 2015. This inspection was undertaken to check that improvements to meet legal requirements planned by the provider after our comprehensive inspection of 29 January 2015 had been made.

The focused inspection was undertaken to check that the management of the home had systems in place to ensure that people were only provided with care they agreed to or where this was in their best interests.

We inspected the service against one of the five questions we ask about services: is the service effective? This is because the service was not meeting legal requirements in relation to this question.

This unannounced focused inspection was undertaken by one inspector.

Before the inspection we looked at all of the information that we hold about the home. This included information from the provider’s action report, which we received on 20 February 2015, and information from notifications received by us. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to send to us by law.

During the inspection we spoke with two people and two relatives. We also spoke with the provider, the registered manager and the deputy manager.

We also used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

We looked at three people’s care records and 11 applications to lawfully deprive people of their liberty. We looked at the staff training matrix for the completion of training and guidance documents related to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

Olivemede provides accommodation for up to 33 people who require personal care. It is not registered to provide nursing care. At the time of our inspection there were 31 people living at the service. Accommodation is provided on two floors and there is also a day centre where people can spend time socialising with other people, relatives and staff.

This unannounced inspection took place on 29 January 2015 and was completed by two inspectors. A member of the Department of Health shadowed this inspection but did not carry out any inspection activity.

At our previous inspection on 12 December 2013 the provider was not in breach of the regulations we looked at.

The service had a registered manager in post but they were not present at the time of this inspection. The current manager had been a registered manager since 2010. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People were safe living at the home and staff assured their safety. There were a sufficient number of suitably qualified staff employed by the provider. People were assured that their care needs would be met in a timely manner. Assessments were undertaken of risks to people who used the service and written plans were in place to manage these risks.

The recruitment process the provider had in place ensured that only staff who had been deemed suitable, after all pre-employment checks had been satisfactorily completed, were offered employment at the home.

The CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. We found that the deputy manager was knowledgeable about when a request for a DoLS would be required. However, we found that no mental capacity assessments had been recorded for those people who may not have capacity to make decisions. Staff had a limited understanding of the MCA due to not having had specific training on this subject. This put people at risk of care and support being provided that was not in their best interests. This also put people at risk of being unlawfully deprived of their liberty.

People’s privacy and dignity was respected by staff at all times. People’s care needs were met in a compassionate way. People’s hobbies and interests were supported with a wide range of opportunities for people to take part in events which were important to them and to be supported with these.

People’s assessed care needs were planned and staff met these with a good understanding of how people’s needs were most effectively provided for. Care records provided staff with information and guidance on the care preferences each person had.

People were consistently supported to access and see a full range of health care professionals. People’s health care needs were met in a timely manner. Health assessments were in place to ensure that people were safely supported with any risks to their health.

People were provided with a sufficient quantity of nutritious and healthy food options. People were supported with diets appropriate to their health care support needs. There was a sufficient quantity of food and drinks available including fruit and snacks.

A complaints procedure was in place. Complaints had been recorded and responded to in line with the provider’s policy. People’s concerns were acted upon and the actions taken were effective.

The deputy manager and staff were supported effectively including periods where they covered for the registered manager.

Audits and checks completed by the provider, registered manager and staff ensured that the quality of the service provided at the home was kept under review. Most staff had worked at the home for several years and staff were very satisfied with the support they received.

During our inspection we found a breach of the Health and Social Care Act 200 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experience of people using the service. This was because some of the people using the service had complex needs which meant they were not able to tell us their experiences. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI) as this is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

Care records we reviewed indicated to us that people who used the service had the right level of information to make a decision about their care and support and that staff respected these decisions

People we spoke with had positive comments about the standard of support and care they received. One person told us that they were, "More than content.” Another person told us that, “I am perfectly happy here. They (staff) do everything they can to make you happy.”

Staff had access to care records which contained information and guidance for staff to ensure that they provided people with safe, appropriate, individual care and support.

When reviewing medication administration records (MAR) charts, we saw documented evidence of accurate medication administration by staff.

There was an effective system in place for people to raise a concern or make a complaint if they wished to do so.

We found that people were able to decide what they wanted to do and when they wanted to do it. People helped determine how the home was run through residents meetings and family involvement.

People's care records and health care appointments were regularly reviewed to ensure that people's care was up-to-date and where any changes in a person's health were observed, staff knew how to address these with the appropriate health care professional.

The care home followed Department of Health guidelines on hygiene and infection control. We saw evidence of clean paper towels, hand wash gels and hand washing procedures provided throughout the home.

Prior to staff commencing employment at the home the provider ensured that appropriate identity and Criminal Records Bureau checks were completed.

The provider used various means to obtain people's views on the quality of care provided by the service and used the information to make improvements whenever possible.

We spoke with a number of people who told us that they were happy at the home and felt safe there. One person said, “Staff are wonderful”. Another person said, “Staff are Superb”. One person said there was not always much to do, and another said they enjoyed the garden, feeding the chickens and the sunshine.