Holly House

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

We have not awarded this service a score for Caring.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Caring.

The provider always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Positive compassionate relationships were seen between people and staff. Staff were kind and caring and supported people with dignity. People told us, they were happy and kind interactions were taking place. Relatives were positive about the service and the care their loved ones received. Comments included, “100% kindness and compassion and staff listen to [person] and staff know them very well.” A professional told us about their experiences in the service, they said, “The staff show resilience, calmness, and kindness with [person].” However, 1 professional fedback that the service would benefit at times from a more positive approach to engaging with them.

Care was individualised and provided according to people’s needs, all but one person had their own flats with lounge and bedroom space with kitchenette and ensuite. One person had a separate self-contained flat. The individual accommodation people lived in would allow for personal space, if they wished but they also had access to communal facilities with other people, if they liked.

We observed thoughtful and considerate interactions between people, staff and the management. It was apparent people were treated with dignity and compassion whilst maintaining joyful ‘banter’ between them. We discussed with the senior management the benefits of undertaking observations of interactions with staff and people to ensure all staff communicated well with all people. Staff knew how to support people to maintain their dignity. They said, “People are treated well. The team work here is unbelievable, we are a good team, and all help each other which impacts on how well people are cared for. Everyone is involved.”

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

People’s individual needs were considered, and care was provided in line with their preference and choice. People and relatives were happy with the individual care they received and said staff understood their needs. They said, “[Person] always has staff with them; they have some independence” and, “I am happy with the way they are looking after [person].” A representative for people who used the service suggested that the service, ‘Ensures staff were engaging in meaningful conversations and interactions with people.’ However, we observed staff engaging and discussing people’s choices and what they wanted to do. It was clear staff knew people well in particular the management team and meaningful relationships had been built.

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

People and relatives told us that choices were being offered including the activities they undertook. We saw people being supported with their own choices, as they wished however, there was some feedback that people were not always able to go out as they wished and a professional said that community activities could be more accessible for 1 person. We saw that this person had been out on day 2 of our visit. The provider discussed the various ways people were supported into the community and gave examples of community activity taking place according to people’s own choices. We observed people accessing the community and some activities when we visited and saw evidence in records of these taking place.

Staff told us how they offered people choice. Staff told us about the activities people engaged with and were involved in. One staff member told us, “All residents but mainly (three people’s names) enjoy playing games together, they all get on really well. They also play garden games when its warm including swing ball and large connect 4. Everyone goes out every day even if it is just to the shop, they go as a group to the cinema, bowling.” Information about activities was recorded and records had good information in them about people’s interests and needs. Regular meetings were taking place, and daily updates were provided to the staff team about people, and how to support them.

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

People were listened to and their choice and needs were taken into account. Information was in a format that helped people to communicate, and we observed staff communicating with people with kindness. However, some staff were better at communicating than others. We discussed with the management the importance of ensuring staff engaged people in agreed tasks as part of their care planning rather than undertaking the task for them.

However, it was clear some people had very good relationships with the staff; in particular the female staff and female management; and engaged positively with them. Other people discussed the challenges with the new registered manager. The provider demonstrated how they had supported the people, staff and the service with a comprehensive handover and transition from the previous management to the new registered manager.

The provider mostly cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Most staff were positive about the support provided by the management team and were positive about the new registered manager, but not all. Staff told us they worked well as a team. However, they discussed the changes in the management and that they had found it difficult. Some staff told us they felt less supported and engaged. Others told us, “Registered manager is ok and settling in and I can approach them when needed”, “The new (registered) manager I don’t know that well, I do my work, handover my report then go. We don’t know each other yet” and “(Deputy manager) is amazing but the (management) doesn’t make me feel valued or understood.

Training to support staff in their roles was being provided, supervisions and regular spot checks were being undertaken. Senior management and records we looked at confirmed this. The provider confirmed during our assessment that a new manager had taken over in the service and would be applying to the Care Quality Commission to be registered manager.