Turning Point - Hollygrove

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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.

The provider made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People had a personalised care plan which recorded information on their likes, dislikes and preferences. The service had a key worker system which meant a member of staff was identified to get to know specific people in more detail. They acted as a link between people, the service and family to help share information and make sure people had the care they wanted and needed. The registered manager told us they matched key workers to people depending on personality, people’s needs and the skills of staff.

People and relatives shared positive feedback about the key worker system and said they were involved in people’s care. Comments from relatives included, “[Person’s] key worker is fantastic, [person] is always happy” and “I have seen [person’s] care plan, staff discuss it with me and consult me.”

We observed people being supported in a person-centred way. Staff offered people choices, communicated with them effectively and treated people with respect, care and understanding.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Staff worked with other professionals to ensure all health and social care needs were met and care was joined up for people. If people were needing to have a stay in hospital, staff from the service went to support them to provide people with continuity. One professional said, “Staff support people in hospital well. They work well with hospital staff and have a good communication with other professionals involved.” The registered manager had worked with local hospital staff to share the differences between residential and nursing homes. This helped provide them with knowledge on what staff in residential care homes could and could not do.

People received care from a consistent staff team who had worked with people for some time. The service did not use agency staff which meant people were consistently seeing familiar faces and being provided with the care they needed.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The provider was familiar with the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). This meant information could be provided to people in a range of different ways. In the provider information return (PIR) completed prior to this assessment, the provider told us, ‘At Hollygrove we try to make sure that we have accessible information for all those people we support. This can include the following, easy reads, larger print, photos, simplified language, Makaton and support from individuals circle of support’. We observed people had ‘circle of support’ information in their records. This was information about who was important in people’s lives.

People’s individual communication needs were recorded with detailed information on how to effectively communicate with people.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The provider had a complaints process which was accessible. People’s relatives said they knew how to complain if needed. The service had only received 1 complaint which was managed under the provider complaints procedures.

There were ‘house meetings’ where information was shared with people about important events. For example, the service had recently increased their capacity by 1 room. This had been discussed with people and the steps to be followed for any new people moving into the service. These meetings also gave people an opportunity to discuss any changes they wanted to make or things they wanted to try.

The service had an involvement plan which outlined what people wanted and ways of involving them in their local community. For one person, staff were actively seeking opportunities to do some volunteering. This was a goal for the person.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People had their own rooms and there were various communal areas for people to use. If people wanted a quieter space the service had the room to accommodate this. People had access to outside space from the ground floor. There was a small garden area with outdoor furniture for people to use.

The service was staffed 24/7 and included waking night staff. This meant people always had support from staff when needed. There were on-call arrangements, so staff always had access to management cover. This helped make sure people were having timely responses to any issues or concerns.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

The registered manager was aware of ways people could face discrimination or inequality. They said they always advocated for people where needed and made sure people had the access to services they needed. The provider employed an involvement lead who worked with people and staff to find local initiatives for people to access. They also made sure people had better access to all areas of their care and support.

Leaders showed a good understanding of best practice when working with and supporting people with learning disabilities and staff had received specialist training. During our site visits we observed staff applying their learning into how they interacted with people. For example, staff would explain to people what they were doing before carrying out the task and they made sure they had eye contact with people. This enabled people to communicate with staff and make sure their needs were known.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

There was no end-of-life care taking place at the time of this assessment. People had been supported to record their wishes for this type of care in their care plans. One relative said, “There is an end-of-life care plan, it has all been discussed and sorted out.”

In the PIR the provider shared an example of how they had supported people following a death at the service, making sure people were involved and supported to express their emotions.