Hollyfields

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’s care plans were person centred and reflected their preferences. Changing needs were monitored through monthly reviews, meetings, weekly clinics and monthly multi-disciplinary meetings. Leaders carried out regular audits of care records. Staff we spoke with told us they knew people; they were able to access information form care records. One staff member told us, “I read the care plans they are informative”.
 

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 had training to enable them to meet the needs of the people they were supporting. They understood people’s health needs and worked in partnership with external professionals. People were supported by a consistent team of staff, which helped maintain continuity of care. One person told us, “The staff are kind, and it is the same staff all the time, that helps because they know me and what I like”.
 

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.
People’s communication needs were assessed, identified, and clearly recorded to ensure staff could provide appropriate support. Residents were given a welcome booklet containing key information about the service and the local area to help them settle in and understand what to expect. The provider confirmed that information could be made available in a variety of formats to meet individual needs, in line with accessibility requirements. They had an up-to-date policy on Accessible Information Standards, which outlined how the service would ensure information was tailored and delivered in a way that people could understand. Most staff had completed training on GDPR (General Data Protection Regulations) and peoples care records were stored securely on an electronic system
 

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. They sought feedback from people through various channels, including annual satisfaction surveys. They reviewed the responses and acted on the feedback to improve the service. Regular meetings were also held to encourage engagement; however, the registered manager told us these were not well attended despite efforts to try different approaches. People had access to clear information on how to make a complaint, and this was understood by some people we spoke with. One person told us, “I have never made a complaint, but I would go to the manager, or the unit manager”.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The environment supported accessibility for people, with wide corridors fitted with handrails and adapted toilets and bathrooms equipped with appropriate fixtures. Care plans specified the equipment each person required and how staff should support them to access different areas of the service. We observed that people had the equipment they needed and were able to move around safely. The provider also maintained suitable arrangements for emergencies, including a business continuity plan and an on-call rota to ensure support was available when required.

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 explained the service was designed so people could remain in the same setting and experience the full journey without moving to another service when their needs changed. Staff completed equality and diversity training, which enabled them to recognise and address discrimination and deliver fair, inclusive care. People confirmed they felt treated equally; one person told us, “Staff treat me fairly. I use a wheelchair and need help getting out of bed or the chair, but I never feel left out or treated differently”.
 

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.
We saw some people had end-of-life plans in place, which recorded their wishes. Staff documented decisions about people’s preferences for treatment if their health deteriorated. For example, some people had ‘Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation’ (DNACPR) and Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) forms in place. One person told us, “I have a funeral plan, it has all my wishes on it,” showing they had time and support to make informed decisions about their future.