Oliver House

People's experience of the service and what we found Since our last inspection, the provider had made significant improvements to the service. Medicines were now safely managed. Risk assessments were up to date and provided clear guidance on how to safely support people's identified risks, such as diabetes or skin integrity concerns. The home was clean and well- maintained and checks were in place to ensure specialist equipment was fit for purpose. People felt safe using the service and able to raise concerns with staff. The registered manager and staff understood how to recognise, report and investigate potential abuse. There were enough staff to meet people's needs. Accidents and incidents were reviewed and analysed so lessons could be learned when things went wrong.

Assessments of people's needs were informed by nationally recognised tools and explored people's diverse needs. Staff were suitably trained to carry out their roles and received ongoing support to remain skilled and competent. Staff worked well as a team and alongside relevant healthcare professionals, referring and following recommendations appropriately meaning people achieved good outcomes in relation to their health and well-being.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Staff were kind and caring and considerate of people's diverse needs. People's needs, preferences and choices were well understood, and their privacy and dignity respected.

People received person-centred care, and staff knew people well. There were a variety of activities and engagements with the local community for people to get involved in. People and relatives felt able to raise complaints and that they would be dealt with by the provider. People were supported to make decisions about their preferences for end-of-life care.

Improvements had been made to the overall governance and quality assurance systems. The registered manager had effective oversight of risk within the home, completing regular audits and taking action to improve safety where identified. Feedback was encouraged and people, relatives and staff could share their views through surveys and meetings. There was an open and inclusive culture at the service which meant people received personalised care and good outcomes. The service had positive working relationships with a range of key stakeholders.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk