You are here

Archived: The Hollies Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 21 September 2015

This inspection took place on 11 August 2015 and was unannounced. At our last inspection in April 2015 the service was not meeting the standard in relation to the safe management of medicines. At this inspection we found that the service was now meeting this standard.

The Hollies is a care home for older adults. The maximum number of people they can accommodate is 19. On the day of the inspection there were 19 people residing at the home.

There was a registered manager 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.

People told us they felt safe at the home and safe with the staff who supported them. They told us that staff were patient, kind and respectful. They said they were satisfied with the numbers of staff and that they didn’t have to wait too long for assistance.

People were positive about the staff and staff had the knowledge and skills necessary to support them properly. People told us that the service was responsive to their needs and preferences.

The registered manager and staff at the home had identified and highlighted potential risks to people’s safety and had thought about and recorded how these risks could be reduced.

Staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and told us they would presume a person could make their own decisions about their care and treatment in the first instance. Staff told us it was not right to make choices for people when they could make choices for themselves.

Food looked and smelt appetising and staff were aware of any special diets people required either as a result of a clinical need or a cultural preference.

There were systems in place to ensure medicines were handled and stored securely and administered to people safely and appropriately.

People had good access to healthcare professionals such as doctors, dentists, chiropodists and opticians and any changes to people’s needs were responded to appropriately and quickly.

People told us staff listened to them and respected their choices and decisions.

People using the service and staff were positive about the registered manager. They confirmed that they were asked about the quality of the service and had made comments about this.

People felt the management took their views into account in order to improve service delivery.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 21 September 2015

The service was safe. People told us they felt safe at the home and safe with the staff who supported them.

There were enough staff at the home on each shift to support people safely.

There were systems in place to ensure medicines were handled and stored securely and administered to people safely and appropriately.

Effective

Good

Updated 21 September 2015

The service was effective. People were positive about the staff and staff had the knowledge and skills necessary to support them properly.

Staff understood the principles of the MCA and told us they would always presume a person could make their own decisions about their care and treatment.

People told us they enjoyed the food and staff knew about any special diets people required either as a result of a clinical need or a cultural preference.

People had good access to healthcare professionals such as doctors, dentists, chiropodists and opticians.

Caring

Good

Updated 21 September 2015

The service was caring. We observed staff treating people with respect and as individuals with different needs. Staff understood that people’s diversity was important and something that needed to be upheld and valued.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people’s likes, dislikes and cultural needs and preferences.

Staff gave us examples of how they maintained and respected people’s privacy. These examples included keeping people’s personal information secure as well as ensuring people’s personal space was respected.

Responsive

Good

Updated 21 September 2015

The service was responsive. Everyone at the home was able to make decisions and choices about their care and these decisions were recorded, respected and acted on.

People told us they were happy to raise any concerns they had with the staff and management of the home.

Care plans included an up to date account of all aspects of people’s care needs, including personal and medical history, likes and dislikes, recent care and treatment and the involvement of family members.

Relatives told us that the management and staff listened to them and acted on their suggestions and wishes. They told us they were happy to raise any concerns they had with the staff and management of the home.

Well-led

Good

Updated 21 September 2015

The service was well-led. People we spoke with confirmed that they were asked about the quality of the service and had made comments about this. They felt the service took their views into account in order to improve.

The service had a number of quality monitoring systems including surveys for people using the service, their relatives and other stakeholders.

Staff were positive about the management and told us they appreciated the clear guidance and support they received. Staff had a clear understanding about the visions and values of the service.