You are here

Archived: Hollyfield House Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile


Inspection carried out on 25/08/2015

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 25 August 2015 and was unannounced. At the last inspection in January 2014 we found the service was meeting the regulations we looked at.

Hollyfield House is a small home which provides care and accommodation for up to nine adults with learning disabilities, autism spectrum disorders and complex communication needs. At the time of our inspection there were nine people living in the home. The service had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have a legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Relatives told us people were safe at Hollyfield House. Staff knew how to protect people if they suspected they were at risk of abuse or harm. They had received training in safeguarding adults at risk and knew how and when to report their concerns if they suspected someone was at risk of abuse.

Where risks to people had been identified because of their circumstances and specific needs, there was guidance for staff on how to minimise these in order to keep people safe from injury or harm in the home and community. Regular maintenance and service checks were carried out of the premises to ensure the environment and equipment was safe. Staff kept the home free of obstacles and objects so that people could move freely and safely around.

There were enough suitable staff to care for and support people. Appropriate checks were carried out by the provider to ensure staff were suitable and fit to work at the home. New staff had to demonstrate an appropriate level of competency before they could work with people unsupervised. All staff received relevant training to help them in their roles. Staff felt supported by the registered manager and were provided with opportunities to share their views and ideas about how people’s experiences could be improved. Staff had a good understanding and awareness of people’s needs and how these should be met. The way they supported people during the inspection was kind, caring, and respectful.

People were supported to keep healthy and well. Staff ensured people were able to promptly access healthcare services when this was needed. Medicines were stored safely, and people received their medicines as prescribed. People were encouraged to drink and eat sufficient amounts to reduce the risk to them of malnutrition and dehydration.

Individualised care plans had been developed for each person using the service which reflected their specific needs and preferences for how they were cared for and supported. These gave staff guidance and instructions on how people’s needs should be met. People were appropriately supported by staff to make decisions about their care and support needs and encouraged by staff to be as independent as they could be. Staff used different methods of communication to ensure people could be involved in making these decisions.

The home was open and welcoming to people’s visiting relatives and friends. People were encouraged to maintain relationships with people that were important to them and to undertake social activities and outings of their choosing. People were supported to raise any concerns and there were arrangements in place to deal with people's complaints, appropriately.

The registered manager demonstrated good leadership. They ensured people’s views about how the care and support they received could be improved were regularly sought by staff. They ensured staff were clear about their duties and responsibilities to the people they cared for and accountable for how they supported people to meet their care goals and objectives.

The provider and managers carried out regular checks of key aspects of the service to monitor and assess the safety and quality of the service that people experienced. The registered manager took appropriate action to make changes and improvements when this was needed. The service used external scrutiny and challenge to ensure that appropriate care and support for people on the autistic spectrum was being provided. They shared good practice and learning with other similar services and organisations to effectively support people on the autistic spectrum.

Staff had sufficient training in the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) to understand when an application should be made and in how to submit one. DoLS provides a process to make sure that people are only deprived of their liberty in a safe and correct way, when it is in their best interests and there is no other way to look after them.

Inspection carried out on 8, 10 January 2014

During a routine inspection

We found that nine people were supported to live at Hollyfield House. The deputy manager told us and records confirmed that the service has received accreditation from The National Autistic Society demonstrating they had achieved a recognised standard of excellence in providing care for young adults with autistic spectrum disorders.

We found that people were supported in promoting their independence and community involvement and people's diversity, values and human rights were respected.

People's care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. We found that people's care and treatment reflected relevant research and guidance.

People who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent it from happening.

There were effective recruitment and selection procedures in place. We saw evidence that appropriate checks were undertaken before staff began work.

People's personal records, medical records, staff records and other records relevant to the management of the service were accurate and fit for purpose.

Inspection carried out on 20 December 2012

During a routine inspection

We carried out an inspection visit on 20th of December 2012. We looked at the personal care and treatment records for people who use the service. We spoke with members of staff and family members of the people who use the service. Due to the communication needs of the people who use services we were unable to speak to any of them directly about their experiences of care in this setting.

Due to the communication needs of the people who use services we were unable to speak to any of them directly about their experiences of care in this setting.

We spoke with members of staff and family members of the people who use the service.

The family members we spoke with made positive comments and said that they felt that they had been kept up to date and involved in the care of the person using the service. People told us that regular meetings were held and that they could keep in touch with the unit via a variety of means including email. In addition people told us that when they had made suggestions in regard to potential activities, these had been acted upon. People also said that the staff did a very good job and that they had no reason to complain about the service provided.

Inspection carried out on 13 September 2011

During a routine inspection

Due to their needs, many people that we met during our visit were unable to share their views about the standards of care. However we saw positive comments that had been made by relatives regarding the care and support that the service offers. One comment was �we are really happy with the support� and another relative wrote �We are pleased with the support that Resident X gets from the staff of Hollyfield House�.

Reports under our old system of regulation (including those from before CQC was created)