• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: The Hollies Care Home

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

11 Queen Ediths Way, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, CB1 7PH (01223) 249924

Provided and run by:
Guy Curtis Care Limited

All Inspections

21 October 2014

During a routine inspection

The Hollies Care Home provides accommodation and care for up to 22 people some of who are living with dementia. There were 21 people living at the home when we visited.

This unannounced inspection took place on 21 and 22 October 2014. The previous inspection was undertaken on 13 January 2014 and had been undertaken as a dementia themed inspection. During this inspection we found that three regulations were not being met. We received an action plan update in July 2014 stating that action had been taken to address all of the issues raised at the inspection. We asked the provider to make improvements to ensure that each person had their individual needs assessed and planned for and that care was delivered in a way that met people’s needs. We found that this action had been completed. We also asked that improvements were made to ensure that people received the necessary support from other medical and social care professionals. We found that this action had been completed. We also asked the provider to improve the way they monitored the dementia care they provided at the home. We found that this action had also been completed.

At the time of this inspection a registered manager was 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.

During this inspection we found that staff did not have the knowledge to protect people from the risk of harm. Although staff had received safeguarding training they were not aware of the procedures to follow if they suspected anyone had experienced any harm.

There were poor arrangements for the management of medicines which meant that people were put at risk of harm. People’s individual health and safety risks were assessed, however the management of these risks were not clearly recorded.

CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). No applications had been made to deprive people of their liberty and the manager had not considered whether any applications were required. Arrangements to act in accordance with people’s consent were not always in place. Where people were thought not to have capacity to make certain decisions, mental capacity assessments were not carried out and there was little evidence that decisions were made in people’s best interests in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).

Information from accidents and incidents hadn’t been analysed to ensure that any necessary action had been taken to prevent reoccurrence.

Satisfactory checks were completed during the recruitment of new staff so that only suitable staff worked at The Hollies. People living in the home and the staff confirmed that there were enough people working on each shift to meet people’s needs. Our observations during the inspection confirmed this.

Staff had received an induction so that they could carry out their role.

Staff knew how to care for people and what their support needs were. However people weren’t always involved in the planning and reviewing of their care. The care plans didn’t always reflect people’s current support needs.

People were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts of food and drink. They were also supported to access a range of health care services to monitor their health and treat any health conditions that they had.

There were caring and supportive relationships between people living in the home and care staff. Most people were treated in a caring way and this demonstrated that a positive caring culture existed in the home.

The manager investigated and responded to people’s complaints, according to the provider’s complaints procedure and people were aware of how to make a complaint

People told us they felt their privacy and dignity were respected and made positive comments about staff. Care staff were able to tell us, and we saw, how they respected people’s privacy and promoted their dignity. Activities were enjoyed by people and we saw they were offered choices around activities and people who need it, were given the time to consider these choices.

We found a number of breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

13 January 2014

During a themed inspection looking at Dementia Services

We looked at the care plans for three people living with dementia. We found that care needs identified were basic and there were no clear support plans in relation to a person's dementia. At times, some staff were observed to be unskilled in supporting people with dementia and, at times during our inspection, did not treat people respectfully.

We provided comment cards for people to tell us about their experience. Six comment cards were returned and these contained very positive comments from relatives and people using the service about their experience.

The service had visiting health care professionals such as an optician and dentist. However, although we saw the GP was called out during weekdays, we saw from notes, and were told by the manager and staff, that if a person was unwell outside of the usual working hours the GP would not be called. We were told that staff were able to access out of hours GP services via the 111 service available to them. We were also told that information relating to a person's dementia was not always sent to hospital with a person if they were admitted.

There were limited systems in place for monitoring and assessing the effectiveness of the dementia care being provided to people living at the service and published guidance had not been researched. Staff training was limited and we observed, and staff discussions told us, that the training that had been provided was not effective. There was no analysis of incidents, falls or infection on-going and when a person's needs had changed, care plans were not always updated to reflect current needs.

11 January 2013

During a routine inspection

During our inspection on 11 January 2013, we spoke with six people who lived at the home, we also spoke with the manager, four members of staff and a visiting health care professional. We were told by them that people were encouraged to be independent. The manager told us, 'Whatever they want to do, we aim to help and support them to do it. We want them to feel like this is their home from home.' People told us they were involved in the planning of their care and the reviews of their care plans.

We saw staff communicating with people in a polite and respectful manner and supporting people with their care. Staff told us they felt well supported by the manager and enjoyed working at the home. The manager told us staff were encouraged to develop their skills and were offered a good range of training to carry out their roles in supporting people to meet their health and care needs.

The home had a variety of systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided. We saw that actions had been taken by the manager to address any issues that were highlighted as needing improvements.

14 July 2011

During a routine inspection

People that we spoke with were positive and complimentary about the carers and one person said "they are brilliant and do everything to help and care for me". Relatives we spoke with were complimentary about the care and support provided in the home and felt confident that their relative was safe and comfortable. People spoken with and their relatives commented that they could confidently raise any concerns with the manager and provider at any time. Observations showed us that staff members interacted with people in a friendly, attentive and cheerful manner.