Holly Bank Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

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.

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

There were clear processes in place to manage safeguarding events and the registered manager worked collaboratively with the local authority to support people safely. Staff had received safeguarding training and understood how to recognise and report poor care and abuse. Where people were subject to Deprivation of Liberty safeguards (DoLS) the service had made applications to the local authority and there was clear monitoring in place. DoLS ensure if a person is restricted in a way that deprives them of their liberty in a care home, it is only done when it is in their best interests, is necessary for their safety, and all other options have been considered.

Safeguarding, and accidents and incident records were consistent with information shared with CQC and other stakeholders, who commented that the provider communicated with them well. Lessons learned were recorded and and communicated to team members.

People were able to choose when and where they wanted to do things throughout the day, for example in good weather some people chose to eat outside rather than in the dining room.

People had access to all areas of the service.

People were invited to go with staff to the supermarket to choose what they wanted. Staff struck a good balance between promoting choice but not overwhelming people, and had a personalised approach to everyone, as observed at mealtimes where there was a variety of crockery used to improve accessibility and independence.

Risks to people’s health, safety and wellbeing were assessed and regularly reviewed. Key risks such as fire, falls, skin integrity and nutrition and hydration were assessed and monitored. Staff told us they were kept up to date about any changes in people’s needs through good communication and use of tablet devices linked to care records and handover notes. We observed care being delivered in line with people’s care plans, which promoted their independence and choice.

Staff had been trained in moving and handling techniques; we observed staff using suitable equipment safely, communicating well throughout with respect for the person being supported.

Risk assessments were in place and individual preferences for the way in which people moved around the home independently were respected.

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

People, relatives and friends said that there were enough staff.

Comments included, “They [staff] never complain about their work.” One person said, when asked about how long it took to have a member of staff help; “Here there is always someone on hand” People told us staff seemed well-trained and knew what they were doing.

Staff communicated well as a team, in a very discreet and quiet way, showing great respect for the people living in the service. This was evidenced by feedback gained from people and their relatives who all spoke positively about their experiences interacting with staff.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. Safe staffing levels were in place. This meant staff had time to assist people at a pace that suited them.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.