Holly House Residential Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 75 (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 made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. Care plans and risk assessments were reviewed to make sure these met people’s needs and reflected their individual wishes and preferences. A relative told us, “When we were looking for a new home for [person], we visited a few times and sat with them (the provider) for a couple of hours at a time. We went through all [person’s] likes and dislikes, favourite music, routines, what she likes to eat, what she likes to do in the morning. They (staff) really wanted to know her.”

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. People received care and support from the same group of staff, which enabled continuity of care. The provider had ensured staff completed specific training for the people they supported. This included training for dementia care and continence and catheter care.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The provider understood the requirements of the Accessible Information Standard. Information was made available to people, if required, in different formats to support people’s understanding. For example, the provider translated a care plan into another language for a person they supported whose first language was not English.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. The provider ensured people and their relatives were given opportunities to provide feedback. People’s relatives told us they were able to contact the provider via telephone and email when required. People had been allocated a staff member as their ‘key worker’, and regular meetings took place with the key worker, the person and/or their family member which enabled people to raise complaints and share feedback. Any improvements or actions for individuals were identified as part of these meetings.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. There were arrangements in place to ensure care was always available for people. The provider was available during outside of normal working hours to support staff if required.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. People and their relatives did not report any concerns in relation to any experience of discrimination and inequality. Staff completed training in equality and diversity to understand and reduce inequalities that affected outcomes for people they supported.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. The provider worked closely with the appropriate healthcare professional to ensure where people had a Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) in place, these were reviewed, up to date and appropriate. People’s wishes and preferences for end of life care had been discussed with people and their loved ones and recorded in people’s care plans.