This inspection took place on 12 March 2018 2018 and was unannounced. At the last inspection completed on 10 July 2015 we found the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Olcote is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Olcote accommodates one person in a residential setting. At the time of our inspection there were one person living at the home.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of the inspection. 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 a legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The registered manager continued to keep the person safe, the person’s risks were understood and plans were in place to keep them safe. The registered manager provided all the support the person needed and ensured they had their medicines as required. Risks from infection were minimised and the registered manager had a system in place for if things went wrong.

The person’s needs were assessed and care plans were put in place. The registered manger had undertaken training and demonstrated they used this to provide effective support. The person was supported to maintain a healthy diet and had a choice of meals. The environment was suitable for the person’s needs and they were supported to access health professionals when required. The person was supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and the registered manager supported them in the least restrictive way possible and the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

The person was supported in a caring way as the registered manager treated them as part of the family. The person was able to make choices and was supported to maintain their independence. The person was treated with dignity and respect and their privacy was protected.

The person’s preferences were understood and the registered manager provided care in the way the person wanted. There were opportunities for the person to follow their interest and they understood how to make a complaint. The registered manager was able to describe how they would support the person at the end of their life.

The registered manager was approachable and had a good relationship with the person using the service. The registered manager had systems in place which involved the person in checking the quality of the service they received and checks on the environment were also completed to ensure safety was maintained.

We inspected Olcote on 10 July 2015. The service is registered to provide support and accommodation for one person. The inspection was unannounced. At the time of our inspection, one person used the service.

The service had a registered manager. 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.

At the last inspection of the service on 15 May 2014, the provider was compliant against all the regulations we inspected against.

The person who used the service told us they were safe and protected from harm. They told us they would not hesitate to raise any concerns with the provider if they felt they were at risk of harm. The registered manager understood what constituted abuse and knew what actions to take if abuse was suspected. Risk assessments and management plans were in place to ensure the safety of the person who used the service.

The person who used the service told us the provider was always available to meet their needs. We saw that contingency plans were in place to ensure that the person’s needs continued to be met by suitable trained and qualified people in the event of the absences of the registered manager. The person’s medicines were reviewed regularly, managed safely and stored securely.

The needs of the person who used the service were assessed regularly to ensure that they were met appropriately. The registered manager received regular training to ensure they maintained the required skills and knowledge to provide care. The person who used the service told us they had lived at the home for several years; the registered manager knew them well and was skilled to provide them with the care and support they needed.

The freedom of the person who used the service was not restricted. The registered manager had an understanding of the relevant requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). They told us these requirements did not apply to the person who used the service. The MCA and DoLS set out the requirements that ensure where appropriate; decisions are made in people’s best interest when they are unable to do this for themselves.

The person who used the service told us they had enough to eat and drink. They had a choice of meals and we saw that the registered manager kept a record of all meals they ate to ensure they had a balanced diet. They received regular reviews from health and social care professionals when needed.

Care was tailored to meet the individual needs of the person who used the service. Care plans detailed how they wished to be supported. They were supported and encouraged to live a very active life and to engage in activities in the community and within the home which they enjoyed. There were systems in place to support the person or their relative if they wished to complain or raise concerns about the service, although the person told us they had never had any reason to make a complaint.

The person who used the service told us the registered manager was approachable and always available We saw records which demonstrated that the registered manager gave the person who used the service and their relative opportunities to give regular formal feedback about the quality of services provided. There were effective systems in place to review the quality of the service provided.

We carried out an inspection on 15th May 2014. We talked with the provider and we reviewed information they showed us. We met and spent time the person who lived at Olcote. The person was able to express their views about the service and we saw they appeared to be well and contented with the care and support.

We considered our inspection findings to answer the questions we always ask;

Is the service safe?

From our observations and from the information we saw in care plans, policies, procedures and records the provider's safety monitoring systems were robust. The provider showed that they had a clear understanding of their role in providing care and safeguarding the person they supported. They demonstrated that they knew the person very well and understood their support needs.

We saw evidence in the care plans and from talking with the person they were able to make decisions and they were able to go out when and where they wished.

The provider understood about the risk management and detailed plans had been written for all the areas of care and support. The provider demonstrated that they understood how to show people respect and maintain people's dignity at all times.

The provider told us that there were no deprivations of liberty safeguards in place at Olcote.

The provider demonstrated that they were aware of the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberties and knew when to use these. We saw that carers would have access to all the information they required to maintain safe levels of care and support.

Systems were in place to make sure that the provider learned from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints and concerns. This meant that the person living at Olcote was benefiting from a service that was taking on board lessons learnt.

Is the service effective?

The person’s health and care needs had been assessed and care plans were in place. There was evidence of the person and their representative has been involved in care plans and annual reviews.

The person’s health care needs were regularly assessed and detailed in the care and health action plans. Specialist health and social care professionals regularly gave input to the person’s care. All care, activity and risk assessment plans were reviewed regularly and were up to date.

We saw that the person who lived at Olcote was supported to continue to develop their learning, independence and health care.

Is the service caring?

We observed during our visit and saw in person's care plans that the person had a full and active life. The person had a wide range of interests and took part in a wide range of leisure and social activities.

The provider demonstrated to us that they were committed to providing the best level of care for the person who used the service. They were aware of potential risks, the person's rights and their responsibilities.

Is the service responsive?

We found that the care plan was person centred and contained detailed information about the person’s needs and preferences.

There was regular input from external social care and health professionals when needed. We saw that the provider had satisfaction questionnaire for the service user, their family and representatives to comment on the service provided at Olcote. The surveys we looked at were all very positive.

We were told about and we saw that the provider received regular training to meet the support needs of the person who used the service.

We were told by the provider how the person would be supported if a hospital admission was required. The person had a hospital passport with information about themselves and their care needs to take with them if they required a stay in hospital.

Is the service well-led?

The provider had supported this person for many years. They demonstrated to us that they knew the person very well. They undertook regularly learning activities to maintain and up to date level of knowledge. We saw evidence that the provider was experienced and skilled in the provision of care.

The provider had a quality assurance system in place. Records seen by us showed that any shortfalls identified had been addressed.

At our previous inspection we saw that records were not stored securely and the provider was unable to locate them when asked. At this inspection we saw that all the records were stored in a secure environment and they were located promptly when we requested to see them.

When we carried out our unannounced inspection we spoke with the person who lived at the home and two staff. We reviewed care records and other documents, and observed how the person was supported to make decisions and choices about how they were cared for.

The person told us that they were happy living there and very satisfied with the care that they received. They told us, “It’s marvellous here. It’s a family home, home from home”.

We saw that before the person received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes. The care that the person received was as identified in their care plan and met their needs. The person told us, “I go out to places most days. I play the guitar, banjo, keyboard and mouth organ. I keep very busy”. The person we spoke with told us that they felt safe living at the home and care staff that we spoke with had a good understanding of how to keep the person safe. We observed that the person who lived at the home was cared for, or supported by, suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff.

We observed that there were systems in place to store records securely but these were not always used. Care records were detailed, accurate and fit for purpose.

People were involved in planning their own care. The person living at the home confirmed they spoke regularly with the providers about their care and about the things they wanted to do. They said that they were encouraged and supported to have an active lifestyle choosing the things they wanted to do.

The person was having their health and social care needs met. The person told us that they were supported to attend for health care appointments and health checks. Plans of care clearly showed their needs and how these were to be met. Risk assessments were in place to keep the person safe. The person and the provider regularly reviewed the care provided.

The provider/manager was supporting the person to have their medicine as prescribed. Medication was safely stored and appropriate records were kept.

The person living at the home was supported by staff that knew them well and had the knowledge to provide their care in the way the person wanted.

Systems were in place to check the standard of care provided. This included regularly seeking the views of the person that lived there.