• Care Home
  • Care home

Hollybank Residential Home

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

5 Abbots Lane, Kenley, Surrey, CR8 5JB (020) 8660 4213

Provided and run by:
Mrs Valerie Jane Taylor

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Background to this inspection

Updated 15 February 2022

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

As part of CQC’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic we are looking at how services manage infection control and visiting arrangements. This was a targeted inspection looking at the infection prevention and control measures the provider had in place. We also asked the provider about any staffing pressures the service was experiencing and whether this was having an impact on the service.

This inspection took place on 27 January 2022 and was announced. We gave the service 24 hours’ notice of the inspection.

Overall inspection


Updated 15 February 2022

About the service

Hollybank is a residential care home providing personal care and accommodation to 17 people aged 65 and over at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to 17 people.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People were protected from the risk of harm and abuse. There were safeguarding policies and procedures in place and staff were aware of this.

Comprehensive assessments of people’s needs were in place. There was evidence of improved safety of people, including reduction of falls and pressure ulcers. This showed risks were being managed properly.

Staff had been recruited safely. They underwent appropriate recruitment checks before they commenced working at the service.

Medicines were administered safely. All staff members had undergone relevant training for medicines administration.

There was an infection control policy and measures were in place for infection prevention and control. There was a system for managing accidents and incidents to reduce the risk of them reoccurring.

The service carried out comprehensive assessments of people’s needs and developed person-centred care plans. People had agreed goals of care which were delivered in line with standards, guidance and the law.

People’s nutritional needs were met. They had been involved in drawing up the menu plans, and choices were regularly adapted in line with their preferences.

The environment had been adapted to meet the specific needs of people with dementia. People received co-ordinated input from a range of specialist services, such as psychiatrists, allied health professionals and community pharmacists.

There was evidence of on-going and relevant staff training. Relatives confirmed that staff had skills to support people safely.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. When people were unable to make decisions about their care and support, the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) were followed.

People were supported and treated with dignity and respect. People’s relatives confirmed that staff were kind and caring. People’s care records contained information about their choices and independence.

Specific needs in relation to equality and diversity issues were recorded in people’s care plans and addressed. The menu plans fully catered for different cultures and cuisines.

The service recognised people’s rights to privacy and confidentiality. Confidentiality policies had been updated to comply with the new General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) law.

People received individualised care that met their needs, preferences and interests. People were supported, if needed, to express their views and preferences in relation to their care and support. The service identified and recorded how people wished to communicate and their communication needs.

There was a complaints procedure, which people and their relatives were aware of. The procedure explained the process for reporting a complaint

There were methods of monitoring the quality of the service in place. Regular checks and audits had been carried out in areas related to maintenance of the premises, health and safety, medicines management, infection control and management of accidents and incidents.

Rating at last inspection:

At our last inspection, the service was rated "Good". Our last report was published on 13 December 2016.

Why we inspected:

This was a scheduled inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up:

We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received, we may inspect sooner.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk.