The Hollies

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 78 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

People’s freedoms and rights were promoted by staff and these were in line with the right support, right care and right culture principals. We received positive feedback from people’s relatives about the safety of their family members. They were aware of who they needed to speak to if they had any concerns and told us the staff were responsive, working together to provide a safe and secure environment for them to live in.

Staff we spoke with told us they had face to face safeguarding training provided and we saw training information verifying this. Staff were knowledgeable about the different types of abuse people could be exposed to and felt able to raise any concerns they had directly to the registered manager or through the company’s systems and processes.

We discussed the processes of managing safeguarding incidents with the management team and saw there were clear and open processes in place to investigate any safeguarding incidents. There was evidence of both the duty of candour processes being followed, and proactive working with internal and external health professionals to reduce the risks of safeguarding incidents occurring in the future.

The provider always worked well with people to fully understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care that fully met people’s needs and was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

The risks to people’s safety were exceptionally well managed by the staff working with them. The provider and staff at the service took a proactive approach to both keeping people safe and to encourage and maintain their independence. A relative told us their family member received ‘Brilliant care’. The relative went on to say, “Worked really hard for months to get HFHC (Home from Home Care) placement right and it continually develops according to [Name’s] needs, (they are) happier and healthier than (they have) ever been.” This was reflected in the way people’s risk assessments were developed. There was a huge focus on supporting people to undertake many different social activities and improve their day to day lives. Staff we spoke with were all extremely committed to working with people to support them and were proud of what people had achieved. By working together and following specific guidance in a step by step way to reduce risks and promote independence, staff had supported people to undertake activities they and their families had thought they may never achieve. This included using public transport, going to theme parks or going on holidays either with other peers or their family.

This also extended to reducing people’s anxieties which could lead to behavioural incidents. There was detailed guidance in people’s care plans on how to support people and reduce the risks to their safety. This included guidance on what might trigger someone’s anxiety and what to do to distract and calm people. Staff were extremely knowledgeable about people’s needs and were able to give examples of how they managed those needs. One staff member told us how they managed one person’s anxiety. They said, “Redirect [Name’s] focus and talking to them about things before they get too ‘wound up’.” Although staff had been trained in restraining people safely using approved techniques, they had also had training on how to de-escalate situations. All the staff we spoke with discussed the different ways the people they supported could often be distracted or redirected to prevent their anxiety before any physical restraint was needed. We saw evidence of how staff worked together to manage this risk.

There was evidence to show how the provider had responded to support a person whose behaviours had led on occasion to either physical or clinical restraint. They had used information gathered through incident records to change factors of the person’s care. This including changes to the staff team and ensuring new staff had robust mentoring from staff who knew the person well. This approach had resulted in significant positive changes to the person’s behaviours. For example, in the 1st quarter of 2024 the person had needed to be restrained 14 times and in the 1st quarter of 2025 this had reduced to 2 episodes of physical restraint. The records we viewed and the staff we spoke with showed staff worked together in a positive way to reduce the need for physical restraint, this had a clear positive impact of the outcomes on the person improving their daily life.

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

When we last visited the service we found staffing levels did not always support people to fully access the social activities they wanted to undertake. This in turn had affected some people’s behaviours. At this assessment we reviewed duty rosters over a period of a month and behavioural events over a 6 month period and found there had been improvements in these areas. There was enough staff in place to allow people to undertake social activities of their choice.

Relatives we spoke with said there was enough appropriately trained staff in place to support their family members. One relative said, “Previously (staffing) issues but not for a long time now.” They went on to say staff were well trained in their jobs and felt the staff deserved credit for this. Relatives talked positively about the way staff supported their family member. One relative said, “They (staff) have learnt to negotiate with [name]; communicate with [name] appropriately.”

Staff we spoke with all told us there was enough staff to support people and they worked to support both the people living at the service and each other. All the staff we spoke with told us they received good training for their roles and were supported by their management team. We saw evidence of how staff worked collaboratively together to both safely support people and allow them to live as fuller life as possible. This supported an enabling culture among the staff at the service.

Staff had a number of ways to voice their opinions or raise concerns. They gave witness accounts when people had behavioural incidents, they were encouraged to reflect on what they had learned from different incidents. We saw examples of how staff had done this in a positive way to inform their future practices.

There were robust recruitment processes in place to ensure people were supported by fit and proper staff.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.