The Hollies

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture. At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has changed to Outstanding. This meant service leadership was exceptional and distinctive. Leaders and the culture they created drove and improved high-quality, person-centred care.

This service scored 96 (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 Shared direction and culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

Relatives we spoke with told us they had the opportunity to speak up if they felt things weren’t right. They were able to use the provider’s complaints processes. One relative told us they had utilised this process and the response from the provider had been quick. They told us there was initially some defensiveness about the concerns but this had been overcome and they felt the staff team were actively working with them to deal with their concerns. They had seen improvements and felt they had been listened to. Staff told us there were ‘house meetings’ which people living at the service enjoyed attending and staff helped them make their opinions known. One person took part in the staff recruitment process for the service and their relative said, “[Name] has a say in who the new staff are; involved with interviewing them. They (staff) make [Name’s] opinion matter.”

Staff we spoke with felt able to speak up if they had any concerns. They felt the managers at the service were open and approachable, they felt listened to. The staff had regular one to one supervisions and attended staff meetings. We saw minutes of meetings to show what was discussed and how staff were an inclusive part of the process. For example, one member of staff had noticed how coffee affected one person’s behaviour and had suggested (with the person’s consent) switching to decaffeinated coffee, they told us this had a positive effect on the person. Staff had a number of ways to voice their opinions or raise concerns. They had access to the whistle blowing policy and were aware of how to use this process should they need to.

Staff were also encouraged to complete ‘raise it’ forms to their management team. These electronic forms were designed for staff to raise anything from a complaint or concern to complementing other members of staff on their practice. We saw examples of how staff had put in suggestions for improvements to people’s care and how the managers had responded to ensure staff’s ideas were put into practice. This included supporting people’s physical fitness and diet.

We did not look at Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate.

When we last visited the service we felt the quality monitoring systems in place had not highlighted some of the concerns we found at that assessment.

At this assessment a relative we spoke with told us they were happy with the way the service was run. However, another relative felt the governance processes in place were too complicated. They felt the provider spent more time collecting data than linking it up to use it.

During our assessment of the service we saw the governance processes in use and felt the information gathered by the service had been used to achieve good outcomes for people. We found a number of examples of how the reporting processes had improved care for people as documented elsewhere in this report.

Both the registered manager and the provider’s support team had good oversight of the service and the environment and worked together to maintain a safe environment and ensure people living at the service lived as full a life as possible.

We did not look at Partnerships and communities during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Learning, improvement and innovation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.