Holly Tree Lodge Residential Home Derby

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 65 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect. People were supported by a small and consistent care team, including the registered manager.

Relatives told us staff were kind and supportive. They told us, “It’s the way they speak to [my family member], in a friendly and caring way, they encourage them. They take their time, there is never any rushing, they let them go at her own pace. They speak to them in a soft voice, showing tenderness. They make her quality of life as good as it can be.”

Throughout our assessment visit we observed many examples of natural, kind, caring and compassionate interactions between people and staff. Staff were attentive and used appropriate friendly conversation to create a positive and welcoming atmosphere. We saw staff knock on bedroom doors before entering and explained what they were doing, which showed respect for people’s personal space. People appeared comfortable around staff. These observations reflected a consistent approach to dignity and compassionate care.

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. People’s individual needs and preference were understood by the staff, such as their abilities, aspirations, culture and protected characteristics, despite this not always being formally documented.

Relatives told us staff understood their family member as individuals and adapted support when needs or preferences changed. Staff used their knowledge of people to guide conversations and build rapport, which created familiar and comfortable interactions. Our observations showed staff knew people’s backgrounds and histories. We observed staff speaking with people about their interests and what was important to them and engaging with them in a warm and personalised way.

One person had a notebook in which staff left messages about the support they had provided during the day. This was the person’s preferred method of communication and staff were consistent with this approach. Staff also left positive messages for the person, including “Keep smiling!”

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own support and treatment wellbeing.

In our discussions with people, a lack of meaningful activities was a recurring theme. We noted some communal group activities were available, but people were not always supported to participate in more meaningful person-centred activities that were important to them. One professional told us they felt people needed more stimulation.

The service did not employ a dedicated activities coordinator during the week, and care staff were expected to fulfil this role on top of their existing duties. At weekends, a volunteer visited the home to support with activities, and we saw evidence of this. We spoke with the registered manager about the limited activity provision. They told us they were recruiting an activities coordinator and had interviewed applicants but were waiting for the right person to join the team.

The registered manager told us it was important for staff to make people feel valued and birthdays were celebrated in a meaningful way. Staff decorated people’s doors with banners, balloons, cards and presents to help make the day special. One relative told us, “Initially [my family member] would not leave their room and refused to walk or shower. The staff are now able to encourage them to do both, they encourage their independence. When it was their birthday, they decorated their bedroom with Happy Birthday banners.” The registered manager also shared that one person who recently moved into the home said it was the best birthday they had experienced and they had not felt that special since childhood.

Staff also made efforts to celebrate occasions and holidays that were meaningful to people, including Christmas, Easter or St Patrick’s day.

Although the care team made clear efforts to engage people, the absence of a dedicated activities role limited opportunities for meaningful person-centred engagement.

The service did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. As outlined in the safe section of this report under ‘Safe and effective staffing’ there was not always enough staff to respond to people’s needs.

During our visits call bells were answered promptly. However, some relatives told us there were no call bells in their family member's room and were unsure how their relatives would ask for help if needed. We considered these concerns as part of our assessment and found that not all people were able to use the call bell to request assistance. Where people were able to do so, a call bell was provided. One relative told us, “If [my family member] needs the toilet the staff respond promptly. They are very respectful.”

During this assessment, we recognised staff were making efforts to respond to people’s needs with the resources available to them.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff. Staff felt supported by each other. They were positive about the support they received from the registered manager and provider and told us they were approachable.

We observed calm interactions between staff and saw team members check in with each other during the visit, which helped maintain a steady pace of work. Staff said they were comfortable asking for help and felt listened to when they raised issues.

Supervision and training arrangements were in place and staff told us they had opportunities to speak with the manager about any concerns or support they needed. These arrangements promoted a culture where staff felt valued and able to carry out their roles effectively.

Overall, staff reported feeling supported, respected and able to contribute to improving people’s quality of life.