You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 6 June 2018

This inspection took place and was announced on the first day. At the last inspection in August 2016, the service was rated ‘Requires Improvement’ overall. Significant improvements had been made since the inspection prior to that in March 2016 but some additional improvements were still needed and we needed to see that the positive changes that had been made were sustained.

At this comprehensive inspection we found that the registered manager had acted to address the previous issues and where previous improvements had been made, these had been sustained.

Holly Grange Residential Home is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The service accommodates up to 19 people in one adapted and extended building. At the time of inspection there were 13 people receiving care in the service. A registered manager was in place.

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 were kept as safe as possible in the service. Health and safety and service checks were carried out and action had been taken to address any shortfalls found. Potential risks to people were assessed and action taken to minimise them. People themselves felt safe there. Specialist equipment was available to assist people with limited mobility.

People’s needs were assessed and they were involved in planning their care as much as they were able and wished to be, together with their representatives, where appropriate. People’s wishes with regard to end of life were explored with them and recorded.

People’s rights and freedom were maintained and staff supported their dignity and privacy. People’s individual and diverse needs were identified and provided for. Information was provided in accessible formats where necessary. People’s views about the service were sought via annual surveys and periodic resident’s meetings. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and care staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice .

People felt the staff were kind, caring and listened to them. People knew how to complain and any complaints made were addressed. A range of activities and entertainment was provided which people could choose whether or not to join in with.

The service liaised effectively with external healthcare services to ensure any more complex needs were met. People’s nutritional and hydration needs were monitored and met. People had been consulted about the meals provided.

Staff received thorough induction training and attended ongoing training updates to maintain their skills. They were supported through regular supervision, annual performance appraisals and periodic team meetings.

The registered manager had systems in place to monitor the operation of the service and plans for ongoing improvements which were being actioned.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 6 June 2018

The service was safe.

A robust staff recruitment process was in place to try to ensure suitable staff were employed. Sufficient staff were employed to meet people's current needs.

The service had responded positively to issues that had arisen and made improvements to reduce risks to people.

People’s medicines were managed safely on their behalf. People felt safe.

Effective

Good

Updated 6 June 2018

The service was effective.

People’s rights and freedom were supported by staff and their consent was sought prior to care being given.

Staff completed a thorough care Certificate induction and training programme and their practical competency was assessed. They received ongoing support and development via supervision and appraisal.

People’s needs were assessed and their care was planned with them involved as much as possible, together with that of their representatives.

People’s health and nutritional needs were met and the service consulted external specialists as appropriate.

Caring

Good

Updated 6 June 2018

The service was caring.

People felt staff were kind and caring and that they were listened to.

Staff showed respect for people’s dignity and privacy when delivering personal care.

People’s individual diverse needs were identified and met by staff.

Responsive

Good

Updated 6 June 2018

The service was responsive.

People were provided with a range of activities and entertainment and could choose whether to take part or not.

People were provided with information in a form they could understand.

People’s care plans were person centred and staff had the information they needed to treat them as individuals.

People knew how to complain if they needed to and complaints had been responded to and addressed.

Well-led

Good

Updated 6 June 2018

The service was well led.

The registered manager had effective systems in place to monitor the service and sought to improve it.

The views of stakeholders were sought and acted on to improve the service.

Staff felt involved and listened to and described a positive supportive team culture.