We carried out a review of the data available to us about Towneley House on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Towneley House, you can give feedback on this service.
Towneley House is a residential care home. The home provides personal care for older people. The home is able to accommodate a maximum of 22 people. At the time of inspection there were 15 people living in the home.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
We have made recommendations about the management of some medicines and recording of legal documents pertaining to mental capacity and the permissions to make decisions on behalf of people.
Medication administration was managed safely and practices were monitored however, we identified some minor recording discrepancies in regard to ‘as and when’ medications.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
We saw that people were comfortable in the presence of staff and positive relationships had developed between people receiving support and staff. The environment had improved and this was an ongoing project.
Staff were recruited safely and received regular training, supervisions, attended staff meetings and the registered manager had sourced additional training ensuring staff would be able to support people effectively. Staff we spoke to said that they felt well supported.
Risks which compromised people’s health and well-being were appropriately assessed, reviewed when needed and contained detailed information. People told us they felt safe living at the service.
Accidents and incidents were recorded and reviewed in order to minimise the risk of reoccurrence. Safeguarding and complaints were also managed appropriately and monitored by the management.
Care plans and risk assessments detailed how people wished and needed to be cared for. They were regularly reviewed and updated as required. We saw evidence of how the registered manager and staff ensured people beliefs, choices and rights were respected.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection and update: The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 17 October 2020). The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulation 15.
Why we inspected
This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service.
We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.
For those key questions not inspected, we used the ratings awarded at the last inspection to calculate the overall rating. The overall rating for the service has changed from requires improvement to good based on the findings of this inspection.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Towneley House on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Recommendations
We are mindful of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on our regulatory function. This meant we took account of the exceptional circumstances arising as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic when considering what enforcement action was necessary and proportionate to keep people safe as a result of this inspection. We will continue to monitor the service and will take further action if needed.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.
Towneley House is a residential home registered to provide accommodation, care and support for 22 people aged 65 and over. At the time of the inspection, 15 people lived at the home. Some people were living with dementia. Accommodation is provided over three floors in 12 single bedrooms and four shared bedrooms.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
Systems and processes safeguarded people from the risk of abuse. Staff were confident the management team would act quickly to keep people safe. People told us they were satisfied with the care provided and had no complaints. The management team understood their responsibility to be open and honest when something went wrong. The systems to ensure lessons were learnt from any incidents and the analysis of any accidents and incidents needed to be further developed.
Risks to people's health, safety and wellbeing were recorded and kept under review. Equipment was safe, serviced and maintained; the registered manager advised the boiler and fire appliances would be undertaken this month. Environmental shortfalls, found at the last inspection, were subject to ongoing improvement. Environmental risks had been recorded and were known to staff but were insufficiently detailed; the registered manager agreed to review this. There were enough staff on duty, and they responded to people’s needs in a timely manner. Safe recruitment systems ensured staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people. The cleanliness of the home had improved and staff followed safe infection control practices. We noted an odour in the entrance hall; the registered manager advised the carpeting was due replacement. Medicines were managed safely; we discussed the dates of opening were needed on boxed and bottled medicines.
There were systems to monitor the quality of the service and to monitor staff practice with evidence improvements had taken place. People's views were sought about the service and acted on. Where possible, people were involved in decisions about their care and support. Care was planned in a person-centred way which helped ensure good outcomes for people. The management of people’s records had improved. The service engaged well with external professionals to ensure people received prompt and coordinated care.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection and update
The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 23 December 2019). There were breaches of regulation in relation to infection prevention and control, maintenance of the home, managing people’s information and ensuring effective monitoring systems were in place. We also made a recommendation about the management of complaints. This service has been rated requires improvement for five consecutive inspections. The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve.
During this inspection, the provider demonstrated that improvements have been made in Safe and Well-Led. However, the rating is limited to requires improvement as there is a breach of regulation in one of the other key questions. The service remains rated requires improvement.
Why we inspected
We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection of this service on 6 and 8 November 2019. Breaches of legal requirements were found. The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve in premises and equipment and good governance.
We undertook this focused inspection to check they had followed their action plan and to confirm they now met legal requirements. This report only covers our findings in relation to the Key Questions Safe and Well-led which contain those requirements.
The ratings from the previous comprehensive inspection for those key questions not looked at on this occasion were used in calculating the overall rating at this inspection. The overall rating for the service remains requires improvement. This is based on the findings at this inspection.
We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to coronavirus and other infection outbreaks effectively.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Towneley House on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
Towneley House is a residential care home providing personal care to 14 people at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to 22 older people. Accommodation is provided over three floors in 12 single bedrooms and four shared bedrooms.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
The service was not safe. We found infection control processes were not adequate in relation to one person’s room and placed people at risk of infection through cross contamination. We made a safeguarding referral and a referral to infection prevention and control team during the inspection. The service was supporting a complex individual and the service was not meeting their needs effectively. The home was not always appropriately maintained and we found a number of maintenance and safety issues. These were addressed during and after the inspection. Call bells were not always working and one call bell was missing from a person’s room. Improvements had been made around the management of medicines.
Confidential information was not stored securely and complaints were not always being dealt with appropriately. Staff told us they understood how to protect people from abuse or unfair treatment. However, some people told us that they had been hurt by other residents. We raised this as an issue and saw that such incidents were taken seriously and were documented appropriately. People had access to good quality food. People told us there were sufficient numbers of suitably trained staff and staff told us they received appropriate training. Records showed people were referred to health care specialists. However, we were aware that several people would benefit from accessing a dentist. People’s care records were detailed and reviews were taking place. Staff told us they had enough information to guide them in supporting people well.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People told us they were supported by kind and respectful staff. Staff engaged with people in a caring way and had built good relationships with people. Staff told us they had regular supervisions and that morale was good. Relatives told us they were happy with the care and support people received. People’s end of life needs and preferences were addressed. However we noted that staff did not receive training in supporting people at end of life.
The service was not well-led. The service had previously been rated as requires improvement 4 times and there were still improvements required at this inspection. The rating of the service was still not displayed in the home, despite reassurances from last inspection. Quality audits did not pick up on the issues that we found on inspection.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection and update
The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 12 December 2018) and there were multiple breaches of regulation. The service remains rated requires improvement. This service has been rated as requires improvement for the last five consecutive inspections.
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Enforcement
We have identified breaches in relation to medicines, infection control and good governance at this inspection.
Please see the action we have told the provider to take at the end of this report.
Follow up
We will meet with the provider following this report being published to discuss how they will make changes to ensure they improve their rating to at least good. We will work with the local authority to monitor progress. We will return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
Towneley House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.
Towneley House is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 22 older people; there were 21 people living in the home at the time of the inspection. The home is situated in a residential area in Burnley near to Towneley Park. Accommodation is provided over three flours in 12 single bedrooms and four shared bedrooms; 13 of the bedrooms have an en-suite facility and all upper floors are accessible via stair lifts. Communal space is provided in two lounges, a dining room and a conservatory.
The service was managed by a registered manager. 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. The registered manager was not present on either day of the inspection. We therefore had to contact them after the inspection to request additional information from them; this was received within the requested timescale.
At our last inspection in February 2017 the service was rated as requires improvement. This was because we found there was a continuing breach of the regulation in relation to record keeping. There was also a continuing breach of the regulation which requires providers to notify the commission of important events which occur in the home. We therefore issued a fixed penalty notice in relation to this breach of regulation. In addition, we found further shortfalls in the maintenance of one person's bedroom, the implementation of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and the recruitment of new staff. Following the inspection, the provider sent us an action plan which set out the action they were taking to meet the regulations.
During this inspection, we found improvements had been made in relation the submission of required notifications, the implementation of the MCA and the recruitment of staff. However, we identified five breaches in regulations. These related to the way medicines were managed in the home, the lack of risk assessments and care plans for one person and the measures in place to ensure people’s dignity and privacy were protected. There was also a lack of robust governance systems to monitor the quality and safety of the service. This has led to the service again being rated as required improvement. This is the fourth consecutive time the service has been rated as required improvement since May 2015. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.
The provider had a quality assurance system in place which included the completion of audits relating to care plans, medicines, the environment and infection control. However, these had not been effective enough to identify the shortfalls we found during this inspection.
Although systems were in place for the safe handling of medicines, we found arrangements for the administration of prescribed topical creams needed to be improved. In addition, improvements were needed to ensure all medicines were stored safely to prevent misuse. Staff had not followed the correct procedure to authorise the covert administration of medicines for one person in their best interests (i.e. in food or drink when the person was unaware), although at the time of the inspection medicines were not being administered in this way.
We looked at the care records for four people and found one person did not have any care plans or risk assessments in place. This meant there was a lack of a complete and accurate record for the person concerned and a risk staff might not provide safe care to this individual. Although the care plan audit undertaken in October 2018 had identified this person's care records were incomplete, no action had been taken to address this matter at the time of the inspection. Following the inspection, the registered manager assured us all required documentation was in place. The remaining care records we looked at included detailed care plans and associated risk assessments which had been reviewed on a monthly basis.
Proper arrangements had not been made to protect the privacy and dignity of people who shared a bedroom. A privacy curtain had previously been in place in this bedroom but had not been replaced after it had fallen down. Staff were unable to give us consistent information about satisfactory alternative arrangements in place to protect people’s dignity and privacy. In addition, staff failed to take into account issues of dignity and privacy when approaching a person to administer a topical cream in a communal area.
People told us they felt safe in Towneley House. They told us staff were kind, caring and responsive to their needs. Although we received mixed feedback about staffing levels, our observations during the inspection showed there were enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs in a timely way.
There were policies and procedures in place regarding safeguarding adults. Staff were able to tell us the correct action to take should they witness or suspect abuse. Improvements had been made to the recruitment process which meant all staff had been safely recruited.
During the inspection, we noted some areas of malodour and noted improvements also needed to be made to the measures in place to prevent the risk of cross infection. We have therefore made a recommendation that the service ensures it acts in accordance with best practice guidance regarding infection prevention in care homes. We have also recommended the provider considers guidance regarding the lighting in care homes for people living with dementia.
The registered manager and staff understood the principles associated with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and acted according to this legislation. People were supported to have choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People's consent to various aspects of their care was considered and was clearly documented in their care records.
Staff had completed an induction when they started work and completed regular training to keep their knowledge and skills updated.
People received support with eating and drinking and their healthcare needs were met. People clearly enjoyed the meals which were provided for them. Appropriate referrals were made to community health and social care professionals, to ensure that people received the necessary support.
People told us they received care that reflected their needs and preferences. A range of activities were provided to meet people’s social needs, although some people told us they missed trips out in the minibus which was being repaired at the time of the inspection.
There were systems in place for people to provide feedback on the care they received. People were aware of how they could raise a complaint or concern if they needed to and had access to a complaints procedure.
People spoke positively about the registered manager and the way the home was run. People spoken with during the inspection, including two visiting health professionals told us they would recommend the home to others as they considered people received good quality care.
Towneley House is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 22 older people. It specialises in providing care for people living with a dementia. The home is situated in a residential area in Burnley near to Towneley Park. Accommodation is provided in 13 single bedrooms and three shared bedrooms, 13 of the bedrooms have an ensuite facility. Communal space is provided in two lounges, one dining room and a conservatory.
The service was managed by a registered manager. 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.
At our last comprehensive inspection on 8 and 9 October 2015, we found the provider was not meeting two regulations. We therefore asked the provider to make improvements to the maintenance of records and ensure statutory notifications were submitted to commission without delay. Following the inspection, the provider sent us an action plan which set out the action they were taking to meet the regulations.
During this inspection, we found there were continuing shortfalls in respect to record keeping and the provider had not notified the commission of three events in the home. We received the notifications following the inspection. We also found further shortfalls in the maintenance of one person’s bedroom, the implementation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the recruitment of new staff. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.
People told us they felt safe and staff were kind and caring. Safeguarding adults’ procedures were in place and staff understood how to safeguard people from abuse. Whilst some risks had been assessed and documented, we found the assessments had not always been updated in line with changing needs. Similarly, we found people’s care plans had not always been kept up to date. This is important to ensure staff have accurate information about people’s current needs.
People's medicines were managed appropriately and according to the records seen people received their medicines as prescribed by health care professionals.
Whilst there was a system in place to record accidents and incidents, we saw an analysis had not been carried out in order to identify any patterns and trends.
We saw the communal areas of the home had been decorated and maintained to satisfactory standard. However, we found one person’s bedroom was in an unacceptable condition which compromised their safety and right to dignity. This situation had not been identified by the provider. We also noted staff had not been instructed on how to close a window in another person’s bedroom which had resulted in the person experiencing discomfort.
At the time of the inspection, there were sufficient staff on duty to meet people’s needs, however, we found shortfalls in the recruitment of new staff and noted essential checks had not always been carried out.
Staff had completed an induction programme when they started work and they were up to date with the provider's mandatory training. Since the last inspection, the registered manager had ensured all staff received regular supervision. All staff had the opportunity to attend meetings and provide feedback on the service. Staff spoken with told us they were well supported and had full confidence in the registered manager.
We found appropriate Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) applications had been made to the local authority. However, we noted there was no evidence to indicate people’s mental capacity to make their own decisions had been assessed and recorded in line the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
There were appropriate arrangements in place to support people to have a varied and healthy diet. People had access to a GP and other health care professionals when they needed them.
The registered manager and staff were observed to have positive relationships with people living in the home. People were relaxed in the company of staff and the home had a warm, friendly atmosphere. There were no restrictions placed on visitors.
There were arrangements in place to manage complaints; however, we noted an analysis had not been carried out to highlight any trends and themes. This is important to inform future practice.
The manager was registered with the commission on 11 November 2016 and was aware the service required improvements. The registered manager used a number of ways to assess and monitor the quality of the service, which included feedback from people, their relatives and staff.
We carried out an inspection of Towneley House on 8 and 9 September 2015. The first day of the inspection was unannounced.
Towneley House is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 22 older people. It specialises in providing care for people living with a dementia. The home is situated in a residential area in Burnley near to Towneley Park. Accommodation is provided in 13 single bedrooms and three shared bedrooms, 13 of the bedrooms have an ensuite facility. Communal space is provided in two lounges, one dining room and a conservatory.
The service had 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. However, the registered manager was due to leave the home the week following the inspection and was not present during our visit. The provider was planning to take full responsibility for the day to day management of the home until a new manager could be appointed.
We last inspected this home on 13 and 14 April 2015 and found the service was meeting the regulations in force at that time. However, we made three recommendations in respect of the development of cleaning schedules and quality monitoring systems as well as the implementation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
During this inspection we found progress had been made in respect of the recommendations. However, we found there were two breaches of the regulations related to people’s care plans and the notification of incidents. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report. We also made a recommendation in respect of on going staff supervision.
People told us they felt safe and were well cared for in the home. Staff knew about safeguarding procedures and we saw concerns had been dealt with appropriately, which helped to keep people safe. However, the provider had not notified us of two incidents in the home and an allegation of abuse in line with the current regulations. We received the notifications following the inspection.
As Towneley House is registered as a care home, CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. We found appropriate applications had been had been made to the Local Authority for a DoLS. Staff had completed relevant training and had access to appropriate policies and procedures relating to DoLS.
Staff had been trained to handle medication and records seen gave detailed information about people’s medication requirements. Records and audits were in place which ensured people received their medication in a safe manner.
A robust recruitment procedure was followed. Staff had completed relevant training for their role and told us they were well supported by the management team. However, we found the staff had not received a recorded supervision for many months.
Staff were aware of people’s nutritional needs and made sure they supported people to have a healthy diet, with choices of a good variety of food.
People had opportunities to participate in a variety of activities and we observed staff actively interacting with people throughout our visit. All people spoken with told us the staff were caring and kind. We saw that staff were respectful and made sure people’s privacy and dignity were maintained. People and a relative spoke positively about the home and the care they or their family member received.
Each person had an individual care plan and risks to their health and well-being had been assessed. However, we noted two people’s plans and risk assessments had not been updated to reflect their current needs.
All people, their relatives and staff spoken with had confidence in the provider and felt the home was well managed. We found there were systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service, which included feedback from people living in the home.
We carried out an inspection of Towneley House on 14 and 15 April 2015. The first day of the inspection was unannounced.
We last inspected this home 26 February 2014 and found the service was meeting the regulations in force at that time.
Towneley House is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 22 older people. It specialises in providing care for older people living with dementia. The home is situated in a residential area in Burnley near Towneley park. Accommodation is currently provided in 13 single bedrooms and three shared bedrooms, 13 of the bedrooms have an ensuite facility. Communal space is provided in two lounges, one dining room and a conservatory.
The service had 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.
During this inspection we made recommendations about the implementation and use of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, the development of cleaning schedules and cleaning records and the development of the quality assurance systems.
People told us they felt safe and were well cared for in the home. Staff knew about safeguarding people from harm and we saw they had received appropriate training on these issues.
We found the arrangements for managing people’s medicines were safe. People had their medicines when they needed them. We found accurate records and appropriate processes were in place for the storage, receipt, administration and disposal of medicines.
We found staff recruitment checks had been completed before a member of staff started to work in the home. Staff had completed relevant training for their role and they were well supported by the management team. There were a sufficient number of staff on duty to meet people’s needs.
Staff were aware of people’s nutritional needs and made sure they supported people to have a healthy diet, with choices of a good variety of food and drink.
All people spoken with told us the staff were caring, compassionate and kind. We saw that staff were respectful and made sure people’s privacy and dignity were maintained. People were given the opportunity to participate in a range of activities.
Each person had an individual care plan and risks to their health and well-being had been assessed. Referrals had been made to the relevant health professionals for advice and support when people’s needs had changed. This meant people received safe and effective care.
People told us they were confident to raise any issue of concern and that it would be taken seriously. There were opportunities for people to give feedback about the service in quality monitoring surveys and residents’ meetings.
People told us the management of the service was good. Staff, relatives and people using the service told us they had confidence in the registered manager who was described as approachable and supportive.
People spoken with were satisfied with the service provided, one person told us, 'I like it here' and another person said 'It's very nice'.
People's care and support was planned and delivered in accordance with their needs. Since our last visit people's care plans had been updated to provide staff with more detailed information on people's healthcare needs.
There were suitable arrangements in place for the management of medication. Staff designated to administer medication had received appropriate training and their competence had been tested to ensure they could handle medicines in line with the home's policies and procedures.
People had an individual plan of care which was supported by various assessments and daily care records. However, we found information in the plans was limited and did not always provide staff with guidance about how best to meet people's needs.
Whilst there were suitable policies and procedures in place to manage medication, we found some improvements were needed in respect of the management of medication.
Staff were provided with appropriate training opportunities and were invited to attend regular meetings.
There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service, which included seeking the views of people living in the home.
On this inspection, the provider was compliant in all outcomes assessed. We noted staff had completed additional training on managing challenging behaviour and risk management plans had been devised for one person with the potential to display behaviour which challenged others and the service. As a result of the application of the plans, the person's behaviour had stabilised and were more settled in the home.
The recruitment and selection procedures for new staff had been revised and we found all checks had been carried out on new employees in line with legal requirements.
A series of audits had been introduced to monitor and evaluate the quality of the service and action plans had been devised to address any shortfalls. People spoken with told us they were satisfied with the service provided.
People's needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered in line with people's needs. We saw that each person had a care plan which had been reviewed at least once a month. The plans contained information and guidance for staff about how best to meet people's needs. One person told us, 'I am looked after and the staff are good' and another person said, 'Everything is going well, I'm happy here'.
The staff had received training on safeguarding vulnerable adults; however, we noted from looking at one person's records that one member of staff had responded inappropriately to one person's behaviour. The provider assured us this incident would be investigated.
Work was ongoing on the premises and this was due to be completed as scheduled in the summer of 2012. Appropriate arrangements were in place for routine maintenance and repairs. People were satisfied with their rooms which they could personalise with their own belongings.
We found from looking at staff files, not all checks had been collated during the recruitment procedure. These are important so the provider can be assured all information provided by applicants is accurate and staff are suitable to work with vulnerable adults.
Whilst the provider had developed a system of audits these had not been implemented at the time of our visit. We also found the results from satisfaction questionnaires had not been collated and analysed. This meant the overall quality of the service and outcomes for people living in the home had not been fully assessed or monitored.
Visitors were welcome in the home at any time and people said they were supported to maintain good contact with their family and friends. Relatives spoken with were very satisfied with the quality of care provided and felt that their family members were looked after in a caring and sensitive manner.
People made complimentary comments about the food and said the staff and the cook were aware of their likes and dislikes, so they were could plan the meals around everyone's preferences.
People said they enjoyed participating in the activities, particularly the twice weekly trips out of the home. On the day of the visit several people enjoyed a day trip to Fleetwood and people were looking forward to a forthcoming two week holiday to Spain.