Archived: The Hollies Residential Care Home

Updated 22 November 2016

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 19 October 2016 and was unannounced.

The inspection was conducted by an adult social care inspector.

Before our inspection, we reviewed the information we held on the service. This included notifications we had received from the registered provider, about incidents that affected the health, safety and welfare of people who lived at the home and previous inspection reports. We checked to see if any information concerning the care and welfare of people who lived at the home had been received.

The provider sent us a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

During the inspection, we spoke with four people using the service, one visiting relative and four staff. We spent time looking at a range of records including four people’s care plans and other associated documentation, three staff recruitment files, staff training and supervision records, the staff rota, medication administration records, a sample of policies and procedures, minutes of staff meetings, compliments and acknowledgements received at the service. We looked around the home, including the bathrooms, lounges and the dining room.

Updated 22 November 2016

This unannounced inspection of The Hollies took place on 19 October 2016.

Providing accommodation and personal care for up to 24 people, The Hollies Residential Care Home is located close to Southport town centre. Accommodation is provided over three floors and can be accessed by stairs or a passenger lift. There is parking at the front of the building and a secluded garden at the back. Disabled access is provided at the rear entrance via the patio doors. The home was last inspected in May 2014, and was found to be compliant.

There was a registered manager in post.

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.

Everyone we spoke with at the home told us that they felt safe and secure.

Staff were able to describe the course of action they would take if they felt someone was being harmed or was at risk of harm. Staff told us they would not hesitate to whistle blow to the registered manager, the local authority or CQC.

Risks which compromised people’s health and well-being were appropriately assessed and reviewed when needed and contained a high level of detailed information.

There was a procedure in place for recording and analysing incidents and accidents.

Rotas showed there were enough staff employed by the home to deliver a safe, consistent service. We observed people were not rushed, and people told us there was enough staff to assist them when they required it.

Medications were managed safely and administered correctly. Medication checks were regularly completed there were systems and processes in place to report any concerns. We saw an example of this during our inspection.

Robust pre-employment checks were completed on staff before they started working at the home to ensure they were suitable to support vulnerable people and had the skills required for this role.

The home was working in accordance with the principles of the Mental Capacity act 2005 and all DoLS (Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards) were in place for those who required them.

Consent was appropriately documented for people who were able to give their consent and we saw there was a procedure in place for ‘best interests’ decisions to help those who could not consent.

People were supported to receive a balanced diet. Menus were varied and different dietary needs were taken into consideration.

Staff were trained in accordance with the provider’s own training and development policy, and training certificates were stored in staff files.

People had access to medical professionals when needed, both via the ‘Telemeds’ system as well as other healthcare professionals who regularly visited the home.

Everyone we spoke with told us they liked the staff and felt they received good care from staff who knew them well.

People told us they were well informed when it came to their care plans and they or their family members had been involved in reviews.

Care plans were personalised to take into account peoples individual needs and preferences. Care plans contained information about people’s cultural beliefs as well as any likes and dislikes they had.

Staff were able to describe how they protected peoples dignity and privacy when delivering support.

There was complaints procedure in place and we saw that complaints had been responded to. There had been no complaints in the last 12 months.

Audits or checks to monitor the quality of care provided were in place and used effectively to improve care provision.