Archived: Hollybank Rest Home

At this inspection, we considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask;

Is the service safe?

Is the service effective?

Is the service caring?

Is the service responsive?

Is the service well-led?

This is a summary of what we found-

The following summary is based on our observations during the inspection. If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

When we visited in April 2014 we spoke with three people using the service, two relatives a visiting entertainer and two healthcare professionals. We also spoke with the provider's main partner and four members of staff. The registered manager was on annual leave when we visited.

Is the service safe?

People were treated with respect by staff who understood people's specific needs and their capacity to make decisions. Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learnt from events such as accidents, incidents and feedback from professionals. This reduced the risks to people and helps the service to improve.

Staff were trained to comply with policies and guidance in relation to safeguarding vulnerable adults, the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DOLS). This meant that people were safeguarded as required.

The premises were well maintained and secure which helps keep people safe.

Recruitment practice was safe and thorough. No staff had been subject to disciplinary action.

Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs were assessed and regularly monitored. Care plans were reviewed and reflected people's needs. Specialist dietary and equipment needs were identified in care plans. The premises were designed to support people's wellbeing, with areas for privacy as well as communal spaces and private bathrooms.

Staff followed guidance detailed in care plans, and discussed at handover meetings.

Is the service caring?

Staff were compassionate and attentive. People using the service and their visitors were complimentary about the attitude of staff. One visiting relative commented on the staff saying, 'They are 'on the case' here and care is excellent.'

People's preferences and interests were recorded and care and support was provided in accordance with people's wishes.

People using the service and their relatives completed an annual satisfaction survey. Where shortfalls or concerns were raised these were addressed.

Is the service responsive?

People's needs were assessed prior to admission the service responded promptly when their support needs changed. The visiting healthcare professional said the service sought medical advice when necessary and staff followed instructions when providing care.

Maintenance issues were addressed promptly and systems were in place to respond effectively if there was a failure in utility services. Incidents such as falls were investigated and managed in a timely way. People can be assured that action is taken as necessary to improve the service.

Is the service well-led?

The service was well led and worked well with other agencies, such as healthcare services. There was an effective quality management system to manage risks and share and learn from feedback and incidents. The service had an audit programme covering all essential standards of quality and safety. Any shortfalls or areas for improvement were identified and addressed. There was good communication within the service, with regular staff meetings so staff were well informed and supported.

Staff told us they understood their roles and responsibilities and worked well as a team. This helps to ensure that people receive a good quality service at all times.

We found people or relatives were consulted about the care they received but the provider had not made adequate arrangements to ensure mental capacity assessments were used effectively.This would ensure that appropriate consent or consultation took place and actions taken were accordance with legal requirements.

Staff received training for professional development and were able from time to time to obtain further relevant professional qualifications.

The environment in which people were cared for was kept clean. Staff were aware of routine practices to maintain good hygiene. The provider had various systems in place to obtain feedback about the service. However, the auditing system had not identified all action required to improve the service and ensure people's needs were met.