Holly House Residential Home

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

At our last assessment we found systems in place to monitor and improve the service needed to be embedded into practice and made more robust. This assessment found systems used to check the quality of the service identified and addressed shortfalls in quality and safety. Environmental and health and safety audit included an account of the areas checked in the service. Environmental issues were identified, planned for and addressed.

This service scored 71 (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 had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

The management team promoted a positive culture that was person centred, open, inclusive, and empowering. The management team were alert to the risks of closed cultures, so if they began to develop they could be quickly identified and addressed. A closed culture is a poor culture that can lead to harm, including human rights breaches such as abuse.

The service had inclusive managers who understood the context in which they delivered care and support and had systems and processes in place to provide appropriate support to the people using the service, and for staff.

There was a positive culture and people were enabled to live a good, ordinary life, as part of their community. The registered manager told us the company was committed to providing people with a home for life. Some people had lived at Holly House for many years. They were clear this was their home and they felt happy secure, comfortable and settled.

Staff we spoke with were positive about the support they received and gave examples of additional support they had been given to meet their individual circumstances.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. The registered manager provided regular opportunities to listen to feedback. Staff said they felt confident their voices were heard, and action would be taken if they raised concerns.

The provider had a complaints and compliments process in place. An easy read version of the complaints form was seen displayed in the home. Staff we spoke with were aware of the provider’s policy on whistleblowing and knew how to whistle blow should the need arise.

The service fostered a culture where people could speak up and their voice would be heard. There was regular engagement with people and their representatives and a focus on supporting people to thrive, develop skills, have new experiences and live the life they choose.

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. The provider had made sure compliance and quality monitoring systems were strengthened and embedded into practice.

The model of care is not in line with current best practice guidance, ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ as the home is larger than best practice guidelines. This was because the service was operating before this guidance was released. However, this was somewhat offset by the management and staff team having a strong focus on outcomes for people, enabling them to live the life they chose. The provider placed a lot of emphasis on involving people in choosing who they lived with, and the house had a very family oriented, domestic feel. There was a part of the house that was equipped to be used as a self-contained flat, providing people with the option to live more independently if they preferred and this was suitable for them.

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. The provider had made sure compliance and quality monitoring systems were strengthened and embedded into practice.

The model of care is not in line with current best practice guidance, ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ as the home is larger than best practice guidelines. This was because the service was operating before this guidance was released. However, this was somewhat offset by the management and staff team having a strong focus on outcomes for people, enabling them to live the life they chose. The provider placed a lot of emphasis on involving people in choosing who they lived with, and the house had a very family oriented, domestic feel. There was a part of the house that was equipped to be used as a self-contained flat, providing people with the option to live more independently if they preferred and this was suitable for them.

The provider engaged with partner professionals so people could thrive, develop skills, have new experiences and live the life they chose. The members of the management team understood the need to work collaboratively with partners for good outcome for people. They shared information and learning with partners.

The management team worked with people, their representatives and staff to build a culture that focused on enabling people to enjoy their lives. Relatives felt involved and consulted. One relative said, “The staff are so friendly.”

The provider engaged with partner professionals so people could thrive, develop skills, have new experiences and live the life they chose. The members of the management team understood the need to work collaboratively with partners for good outcome for people. They shared information and learning with partners.

The management team worked with people, their representatives and staff to build a culture that focused on enabling people to enjoy their lives. Relatives felt involved and consulted. One relative said, “The staff are so friendly.”