Mount Olivet Nursing Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective- This means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

We did not assess the effective key question at our last inspection in 2023. We reviewed this at our assessment in 2017 where we rated the effective key question as good. At this assessment, we identified a breach of regulations in relation to consent to care and treatment. This was because the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support was not always consistent and in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. However, as we looked at 2 quality statements within this key question the rating remains as good.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Assessing needs during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

Most people told us they enjoyed the food at Mount Olivet. One person told us, “I’m very happy with the food, no complaints from me.”

We observed people receiving food and fluid in line with health professional guidance.

Staff told us about people with a modified diet and the guidance they would follow. One staff member told us, “We have a lot of our residents on a pureed diet due to swallowing issues and we have learned about the fluids and thickeners and the IDDSI(Framework- International Dysphagia Diet Standardisation Initiative) levels.”

At the last inspection, the service was in breach of regulations as the provider could not be assured people were having sufficient amounts of food which meant they were at risk of malnourishment. At this assessment the service had improved monitoring of food and fluids, which meant that people were now protected from harm. However, at this assessment, we identified some concerns relating to people’s care plans.

The management team told us the nurses completed the reviews of the care plans and records showed this. However, most of the care plans we reviewed showed reviews were not always effective. We found there were some inaccurate and inconsistencies within the information in people’s care plans. For example, around timing of staff supporting a person to reposition and the textures of a person’s diet. We saw a provider audit identifying improvements that were needed to 1 person’s care plan, the audit did not identify the concerns within the records we reviewed. Whilst we did not identify anyone had come to harm, this contributed to the breach in relation to good governance.

For example, in relation to auditing, identifying improvements and actioning those improvements to a person’s care plan. This is described in the quality statement learning, improvement and innovation in the well-led key question.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Monitoring and improving outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We observed staff asking for consent before supporting people. For example, before supporting them with personal care and moving to different areas of the home. People we spoke with did not highlight any concerns relating to consent to care and treatment.

We spoke to the management team about the principles and application of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. We found the management team did not fully understand their responsibilities in relation to completing a mental capacity assessment and recording a best interest decision before applying for a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) when considering placing a restriction in place to deprive a person of their liberty. Whilst we did not identify anyone who had been unlawfully restricted, this contributed to a breach of regulation in relation to consent to care and treatment.

The service had systems and processes to complete mental capacity assessments and work in line with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. However, we identified people were missing some specific records around restrictive practice and the service looking after and managing people’s money. We raised this with the service who informed us they would be seeking additional support and training to ensure they had these records and they were correct.

Whilst we did not identify anyone who had come to harm or were restricted unlawfully, this contributed to a breach of regulation in relation to consent to care and treatment.