This inspection of Ogilvy Court took place on the 28 February and 1 March 2017. The first day of the inspection was unannounced. At our last inspection on 30 June and 3 July 2015 the service met the regulations inspected.

Ogilvy Court is registered to provide accommodation for up to 57 people who require nursing and personal care. The service is provided to mainly older people some of whom may be living with dementia. It also provides a service for people with physical disabilities, learning disabilities and mental health needs.

The service has a registered manager. 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.

People were treated with respect. Staff engaged with people in a friendly and courteous manner. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity and understood the importance of confidentiality.

People and their relatives told us people were safe living in the home. There were procedures for safeguarding people. Staff knew how to recognise and report potential abuse of the people they supported and cared for.

Risks to people in relation to their care needs had been assessed and guidance was in place for staff to follow to minimise the risk of people being harmed and to keep people safe. Accidents and incidents were addressed appropriately and learning took place to minimise similar incidents reoccurring. We have made a recommendation about the management and safe use of bedrails.

Arrangements were in place to make sure sufficient numbers of skilled staff were deployed at all times to provide people with the care and support they required. However, some people’s relatives told us they felt there were times when the service would benefit from more staff being on duty. The provider had carried out appropriate checks to ensure staff were suitable and fit to support people. People were supported to take part in some activities.

We found that the home was clean and well maintained and records we looked at showed that required health and safety checks were carried out.

Care plans were in place which reflected people's needs and their individual choices and preferences for how they received care. Feedback from people and their relatives was positive about the care provided by the service. Arrangements were in place to make sure people received the medicines they were prescribed, however there were some areas of medicines administration which could be improved.

People had access to appropriate healthcare services including specialist advice when needed. People were registered with a GP who regularly visited the service. People’s nutritional needs were assessed and their dietary needs and preferences met.

Staff were appropriately recruited and supported to provide people with individualised care and support. Staff received a range of training to enable them to be skilled and competent to carry out their roles and responsibilities. They had a good understanding of people's needs and how these should be met. There was an on-going programme of training and development for staff.

Staff understood the legal requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People were encouraged and supported to make decisions for themselves whenever possible. Some staff were a little vague when asked to describe the principles of the MCA and DoLS. However, staff knew about the systems in place for making decisions in people’s best interest when they were unable to make one or more decisions about their care, treatment and/or other aspects of their lives.

The registered manager encouraged an open, inclusive culture within the home. People’s relatives told us they felt welcomed when visiting the ho

Ogilvy Court is a nursing home specialising in the support of adults of any age with dementia, mental health conditions and physical or learning disabilities. It is split into three units, one for people with learning disabilities, and two single gender units for people with dementia. It is registered to accommodate up to 57 people, although the registered manager told us that it is considered full when 55 people live there due to some double-rooms no longer being considered suitable for sharing. This was the case during our visit.

We spoke with 11 people living at the nursing home, and four visiting relatives during our visit, the majority of whom were from the units for people with dementia. People praised the service and the care provided. Comments included, “it’s excellent”, “they go out of their way to change things for you” and “the staff work their socks off.” We were told of how the service had improved the quality of life for some people, for example, in their ability to move around independently and recognise people. People told us that nothing needed changing about the service and that they were happy using it.

The home had a registered manager. People spoke positively about the approach of staff and managers. There were enough staff, and staffing cover was provided when needed.

Where people were not able to make decisions about their care, staff worked with their relatives and other professionals to make sure ‘best interest decisions’ were agreed. People whose behaviour challenged the service were safely supported.

CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We found the location to be making progress towards meeting DoLS requirements.

However, some areas of the service required improvement. Whilst we saw staff treating people kindly, we also saw occasions when people’s dignity and respect was compromised. For example, we saw some staff going into people’s rooms without knocking on their doors, in one instance, surprising the person who was in their room.

In the unit for people with learning disabilities, people were not always treated as individuals. For example, many people were supported to go to bed well before their recorded preferred time. We were not assured that people in the unit for people with learning disabilities received individualised care that was responsive to their interests and preferences.

We found some people who were at risk of dehydration did not have their care and treatment effectively monitored or managed. This was because care planning was not individual enough, and records of being given drinks had some lengthy overnight gaps that started at 1700 hours.

The problems we found breached two health and social care regulations. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

This unannounced inspection took place on the 30 June and the 3 July 2015. At the end of the first day of the inspection we informed the provider when we would return on the 3 July to continue the inspection.

Ogilvy Court provides accommodation and personal and nursing care for up to 57 people some of whom have dementia or learning disabilities. The home is purpose built and located in north west London. Public transport is accessible and there are shops within walking distance of the service.

At our last inspection on 10 April 2014 we identified concerns in relation to some people not being protected from risks of dehydration and some staff not respecting people’s privacy and dignity. Following that inspection we promptly received an action plan from the registered manager. At this comprehensive inspection we found that the required improvements to the service had been made.

There was a registered manager in place. 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.

There was a clear management structure in the home. People told us the home was well managed and the registered manager was accessible and approachable. People who used the service, staff and people’s relatives told us they felt able to speak to the registered manager and other senior staff when they had any concerns or other feedback about the service.

The atmosphere of the home was relaxed and welcoming. People told us they were happy with the service and had their privacy and dignity respected. Conversations with people’s relatives indicated that they were satisfied with the service provided.

Throughout our visit we observed caring and supportive relationships between staff and people using the service. All staff interacted with people in a courteous manner. However, some staff engagement with people was reserved and tasked based rather than relaxed and sociable.

Arrangements were in place to keep people safe. The risks people experienced had been assessed and there were plans in place to minimise the likelihood of harm. Staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported, and were familiar with people’s needs and their key risks.

People were given the support they needed with their medicines and were supported to maintain good health. Their health was monitored closely and referrals made to health professionals when this was needed. People were provided with a choice of food and drink which met their preferences and nutritional needs. We found some people’s experience of mealtimes could be more pleasant such as by dining tables being laid more attractively and condiments and fabric napkins being accessible to people.

Staff received a range of relevant training and were supported to develop their skills and gain relevant qualifications so they were competent to meet the needs of people they cared for. Staff told us they enjoyed working in the home, felt listened to and received the support they needed to carry out their roles and responsibilities. People were protected, as far as possible by a robust staff recruitment system.

Staff had an understanding of the systems in place to protect people if they were unable to make one or more decisions about their care, treatment and other aspects of their lives. Staff knew about the legal requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

People had the opportunity to participate in activities, and were provided with the support they needed to maintain links with their family and friends.

There was an appropriate complaints procedure and people knew how to make a complaint.

There were effective systems in place to identify and manage risks and to monitor the care and welfare of people. Issues were addressed and improvements to the quality of the service were made when required.