Attention: The information on this website is currently out of date and should not be relied upon..

Care Services

carehome, nursing and medical services directory


Oliver Court, Great Yarmouth.

Oliver Court in Great Yarmouth is a Residential home specialising in the provision of services relating to accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care, caring for adults under 65 yrs and mental health conditions. The last inspection date here was 7th November 2017

Oliver Court is managed by Oliver Court Limited.

Contact Details:

    Address:
      Oliver Court
      Bath Hill Terrace
      Great Yarmouth
      NR30 2LF
      United Kingdom
    Telephone:
      01493332552

Ratings:

For a guide to the ratings, click here.

Safe: Requires Improvement
Effective: Good
Caring: Good
Responsive: Good
Well-Led: Good
Overall: Good

Further Details:

Important Dates:

    Last Inspection 2017-11-07
    Last Published 2017-11-07

Local Authority:

    Norfolk

Link to this page:

    HTML   BBCode

Inspection Reports:

Click the title bar on any of the report introductions below to read the full entry. If there is a PDF icon, click it to download the full report.

12th September 2017 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

Oliver Court is a residential home that provides care, support and accommodation for up to 24 people who have mental health support needs. At the time of our inspection there were 24 people living in the home. The inspection took place on 12 September 2017, and was unannounced.

There was a registered manager in post. 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.

Clear and accurate records were not always being kept of medicines administered by staff. Guidance in relation to ‘as required’ medicines needed to be clearer to ensure staff knew when to give these. Storage for temperature sensitive medicines required improvement; there was not a designated fridge for these types of medicines.

Activity provision was provided by staff working in the service. However, some feedback suggested this was not always meeting the individual or specialist needs of people on a day to day basis.

When people moved between services, processes for sharing relevant information with others needed to be more robust, particularly in relation to known risks. The registered manager took prompt action to rectify this.

Staffing levels needed to be reviewed to take account of people’s changing needs.

Care plans were developed and maintained for people who used the service. Care plans covered support needs and personal preferences. Plans were reviewed and updated at regular intervals and information was sought from appropriate professionals as and when required.

Risk assessments were in place to help protect people from avoidable harm. Assessments contained detailed guidance for staff about how to minimise the risk of harm whilst protecting people's rights and freedoms.

The service acted in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) when necessary. People were supported to make their own choices and this was reflected in their care records.

Staff had been trained in safeguarding topics. The registered manager had a good understanding of safeguarding processes and followed these in practice. Thorough recruitment processes were followed before staff started work. This reduced the risk of unsuitable people being employed.

People were supported by well trained, skilled staff. Staff supervision and meetings were taking place, which meant staff had the opportunity to reflect on and develop their practice. Training was provided for staff to enable them to carry out tasks effectively.

People were supported to seek and attend healthcare support as required to promote their health.

There was a complaints process in place. Feedback from people, relatives and others was responded to, analysed, and actions taken were logged.

The registered manager and provider had implemented a range of assurance systems to monitor the quality and effectiveness of the service provided. This included an annual assessment undertaken by an independent consultant. Systems were in place to seek feedback from all people who used the service as a means to develop and improve service delivery.

Staff were positive about ways in which the service was managed and the support received from the management team. The registered manager was described as approachable and part of the team; they promoted the values of the service and we saw that they led by example.

 

 

Latest Additions: