Archived: The Hollies

The Hollies provides care and support for up to 28 older people; some who are living with dementia. 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.

During our visit we saw people being well cared for. We observed staff speaking in a caring and respectful manner to people who lived in the home. Staff demonstrated they knew people’s likes and dislikes.

There was a happy and friendly atmosphere. People enjoyed the company of staff who often sat and chatted to them. People told us the service was caring and they received person centred care

We found the service was meeting the legal requirements relating to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People’s care records demonstrated that all relevant documentation was securely and clearly filed.

People told us they felt safe. Staff had a good understanding of safeguarding vulnerable adults and knew what to do to keep people safe. People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines safely.

We saw the provider had a system in place for the purpose of assessing and monitoring the quality of the service. Records showed the provider investigated and responded to people’s complaints, according to the provider’s complaints procedure. People spoken with told us they had no concerns about their care and support.

People had a good experience at mealtimes. The home met people’s nutritional needs and people reported they had a good choice of food. People received good support that ensured their health care needs were met. Staff were aware of and knew how to respect people’s privacy and dignity.

Staff knew people well and understood how to meet people’s needs. People were involved in making decisions about their care. Care planning and assessment was generally effective. People engaged in social activities and the provider was looking at how these could be broadened.

There were enough staff who were skilled and experienced to meet people’s needs. Staff were supported to do their job well. Robust recruitment checks were carried out before staff started working at the home. There was an on-going training programme in place for staff to ensure they were kept up to date and aware of current good practice.

The service had good management and leadership. The home’s management team promoted quality and safety and had good systems in place to help ensure this was achieved. People were encouraged to share their views and contributed to the running of the home.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people who used the service, their relatives, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People were treated with respect and dignity by the staff. Relatives we spoke with told us they felt confident people were safe. Safeguarding procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported.

Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learnt from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, and investigations. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.

The home had policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards although no applications had needed to be submitted. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made, and in how to submit one. This meant that people will be safeguarded as required.

The service was safe, clean and hygienic. Equipment was well maintained and serviced regularly therefore not putting people at unnecessary risk.

Is the service effective?

There was an advocacy service available if people needed it, this meant that when required people could access additional support.

People's health and care needs were assessed with them or their relatives. Specialist dietary, mobility and equipment needs had been identified in care plans where required. Relatives of people who used the service said they had been involved in writing them and they reflected the person's current needs.

People's needs were taken into account with signage and the layout of the service enabling people to move around freely and safely. The premises had been sensitively adapted to meet the needs of people with physical impairments.

Visitors confirmed they were able to see people in private and visiting times were flexible.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that care workers showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. People commented, 'Staff know things about (my relative) that they can only know through talking with them. They are very caring,' and, 'I think we dropped lucky when we found this place.'

People who used the service, their relatives, friends and other professionals involved with the service completed an annual satisfaction survey. Where shortfalls or concerns were raised these were addressed.

People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes.

Is the service responsive?

People regularly attended a range of activities.

Relatives of people who used the service knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. Although relatives we spoke with told us they had not needed to make a complaint they told us they were confident any issues would be addressed immediately. People can therefore be assured that complaints would be investigated and action taken as necessary.

Is the service well-led?

The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care in a joined up way.

The service had a quality assurance system. Records seen by us showed identified shortfalls were addressed promptly. As a result the quality of the service was continuingly improving.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home and quality assurance processes were in place. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.

Appropriate arrangements were in place in relation to the recording and storage of medicine. Staff understood the medicines policy and how to support people with their medicines.

Staff received appropriate professional development. Staff training was varied and recorded in their individual development file. Staff were supported appropriately to do their job and they understood their roles and responsibilities in caring for people.

People who used the service, their representatives and staff were asked for their views about the care provision and these were acted on. Sytems to evaluate and monitor the quality of the service were maintained to ensure compliance with the regulations.