- Care home
Holly House
Assessment report published 12 August 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
This comprehensive assessment was undertaken between 16 April 2026 and 13 May 2026. We visited the service on 16 April and 7 May 2026. The visit on the 7 May 20206 was undertaken out of hours and was unannounced. The service is registered for accommodation and personal care for up to 6 people under the aged of 65 years, living with a learning disability.
We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed autistic people and people with a learning disability respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted.
Incident and accident records confirmed the action taken as a result of any event. These were very detailed and included lessons learned. Information about events was shared with the staff team. Good records in relation to safeguarding and allegations of abuse were completed. Risks had been assessed and environmental checks had been undertaken. The environment had been adapted to an exceptional standard and personalised to meet the needs of people. Servicing, audits and checks were completed, and infection prevention and control measures were considered. Medicines were managed safely, the provider told us about the process for 2 staff checking stock numbers of a medicine and that they were confident staff knew and had access to up to date information about people’s medicines.
Detailed assessments had been completed; professionals were involved and people were encouraged to live healthier lives. Some fedback about how the service had managed a very complex situation but it also recognised that decisions were required to ensure this person’s individual need was met. Consent, MCA (Mental Capacity Act) and DoLS (Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards) was reflected in care files to support decision making and reduce risk of unlawful restrictions. Meals were provided according to people’s likes and choices, kitchen checks were ongoing. Oral care was provided and staff had access to information and guidance to support people.
People received good care, were treated with respect and choice and independence was supported. Some fedback about the positivity of the staff but a person’s representative talked about the need for more positive engagement with people. Activities were ongoing and we saw people going out into the community. Staff told us they supported people daily to access the community as they wished, and the provider discussed how they supported meaningful community activities and engaged people in their individual tasks.
People were supported to attend appointments and detailed assessments, and care planning supported an individualised person centred approach, no one was in receipt of end of life care, but staff had undertaken end of life training, and 1 staff member was training to be the champion in end of life. Information and prompts were on display in people’s room to guide and support people with daily tasks and goals. No complaints had been received but policy and guidance was available to support the process if required.
People and team meetings were taking place and people, and staff views were sought in surveys and feedback. Some staff were confident in the management and the registered manager, but others said they would be more confident in approaching the deputy manager. Audits and monitoring was taking place and actions recorded as required. The management and senior team were open and transparent, and information required to support the assessment was provided promptly.
People's experience of this service
We undertook observations in the service and spoke with people; we also undertook telephone calls to relatives and representatives.
No concerns were raised in relation to people’s safety and, staff knew what to do if concerns were raised. People told us they were happy. People were admitted safely to the service and relatives were kept informed. Professionals discussed their involvement in assessments. One told us about difficulties in relation to a person and their transition into the service. People raised no concerns about the staff skills; one representative discussed the staff turnover and how this could impact on a person. No concerns were raised in relation to the management of medicines.
People were involved in decisions and assessments, and they told us they were happy living in the service and liked the food. People had access to professionals to support their health needs. Relatives said the service supported people in their daily lives. Staff asked permission before undertaking any activity, we saw staff seeking consent on most occasions, but not all. People were happy with the care; liked the staff and told us it felt like home and they knew what to do if they had a concern. We observed people engaged with female staff, in particular, the management more positively. Positive interactions were seen and it was clear all of the staff knew people well. Relatives told us information was held securely and confidentially.