You are here


Review carried out on 9 September 2021

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Hollybank Nursing Home on 9 September 2021. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.

This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.

If you have concerns about Hollybank Nursing Home, you can give feedback on this service.

Inspection carried out on 18 April 2018

During a routine inspection

Hollybank House is a ‘care home.’ People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Hollybank House provides nursing and personal care in one adapted building for up to 30 older people, including some who may be living with dementia.

At our last inspection in September 2016 we rated the service as Requires Improvement. People who used the service were not always protected from risks associated with unsafe staff recruitment procedures and inaccurate record keeping for people’s risk assessed care needs. At this inspection we found the improvements needed had been made.

We carried out this inspection on 18 April 2018. The inspection was unannounced. There were 25 people living at the service, including three people receiving nursing care. We rated the service as Good.

There was a registered manager at the time of our inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons.’ Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The environment and care equipment was mostly clean, well maintained and free from observable hazards to people’s safety. Staff were provided with relevant equipment, guidance and training but had now always followed this to consistently ensure environmental cleanliness and hygiene. Action subsequently confirmed as taken by the provider, was sufficient to rectify this, which demonstrated lessons learned and improvements made when things go wrong. Emergency contingency plans were in place for staff to follow for likely foreseen emergencies to ensure people’s safety, which they understood.

People and relatives were confident people safety at the service. People were protected from the risk of harm or abuse by sufficient staff who were safely recruited and sufficiently deployed to provide people’s care.

Risks to people’s safety were assessed before they received care, accurately recorded and regularly reviewed. Staff understood and followed people’s related care requirements. This helped to reduce any known risks to people’s safety.

People’s medicines were safely managed. People were supported to take their medicines safely when they needed them. Staff were trained and assessed to ensure this.

People received effective care from staff who were trained and supported to ensure this. Staff obtained people’s consent for their care; and they ensured people’s safety, choice and best interests in a way that was lawful and in the least restrictive manner.

Staff understood people’s health conditions, related care needs and supported people to maintain and improve their health and nutrition. This was done in consultation with relevant external health professionals and staff followed their instructions for people’s care when required.

People were supported in the way they preferred and needed; to eat and drink sufficient amounts they enjoyed, which met with their dietary needs and choices.

Environmental facilities provided sufficient space and a number of aids and adaptations, which often enabled people to move around safely and independently. The provider has since confirmed their action to fully ensure this by additional environmental directional signage. People were comfortable and satisfied with their own rooms, which they could personalise to their own taste.

Staff were kind, caring and compassionate and had established good rapport and relationships with people and their relatives. People or their relevant representatives were informed and involved in agreeing people’s care and daily living arrangements at the service. Staff were trained and followed the provider’s stated care principles

Inspection carried out on 21 September 2016

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 21September 2016 and was unannounced.

At our last inspection on 20 January 2014, we found the provider was meeting all regulations.

Hollybank Nursing Home provides residential and nursing care for up to 30 older people, some of whom are living with dementia. The service is registered for 30 people and at the time of our inspection 29 people were living at the service.

The service had a registered manager who was also the provider of the service. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Staff recruitment procedures were not always followed by the provider.

Following accidents, people’s risk assessments were not always updated.

People did not have a choice as whether to have a shower or a bath as there were only baths available. Some activities were provided, the frequency of these did not always meet everyone’s needs and expectations.

Staff were aware of how to protect people from the risk of abuse or avoidable harm. Staff had been provided with training such as the Mental Capacity Act (2005), Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and safeguarding. Staff felt they received training to enable them to meet the needs of people. We have recommended the provider finds out more about the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards process to ensure best practice and current guidance is followed.

Medicines were safely stored and administered by nursing staff; accurate records were kept. There were systems in place to ensure medicines were safely stored, administered and disposed of.

People received varied, sufficient and nutritious meals. People’s nutritional needs were assessed and records were maintained. People were monitored, referred to relevant professionals and recommendations were followed.

Care plans were reviewed and staff were provided with the information needed to meet people’s needs. Staff consulted with external health professionals to ensure people’s health and care needs were met. People and their relatives were happy with the care and support provided and everyone felt their individual needs were being met.

Staff demonstrated they knew the people well and were aware of the importance of treating them with dignity and respect. We observed staff supporting people with compassion and respect.

Care plans were personalised and developed based on assessments of people’s needs. People were encouraged to make decisions about daily living. Staff understood people’s likes, dislikes and preferred way of being supported.

A complaints procedure was available and people were confident any concerns would be taken seriously. People’s religious beliefs and faiths were respected.

The provider had a number of audits in place to ensure the service ran safely and effectively. The provider carried out surveys and questionnaires and ensured people had the opportunity to voice their thoughts about the service.

Inspection carried out on 20 January 2014

During a routine inspection

We observed interactions and saw that people were relaxed with staff. Staff had a good knowledge of people�s support needs, and we saw the staff were respectful to people when providing this support. One person told us, �The staff are so very kind and helpful. They really are lovely to us.�

Where people were not able to make decisions, capacity assessments were completed and information about why others had made decisions on their behalf had been recorded. This meant people could be confident decisions had been made in their best interest.

People using the service had care records which recorded how they wanted to be supported. The information we read in the care records matched the care, support and treatment we saw being delivered to people.

We saw people were dressed in their own style. People told us if they needed support, the staff would help them to continue to take a pride in their appearance. One person told us, �I�ve had my hair done today. The staff will help me keep it nice. You have to look your best.�

People could participate in activities in the home including attending religious services. One person told us, �We have some fun here and it�s good to be around great friends too.�

Family and friends we spoke with told us they could visit the home whenever they wanted to. People using the service told us family members were able to continue to provide care for them and were involved in providing support.

Inspection carried out on 14 February 2013

During a routine inspection

People we spoke with were happy with the care they received at Hollybank. One person told us, "I think that the staff are great. They treat us like a big family really."

We saw that care plans were detailed and personalised. Risks were also assessed and managed, and consent was being appropriately obtained for people�s care.

We found that people felt safe from abuse at the home. Asked if they felt safe at Hollybank, one person told us, "Yes, very. Completely." We found that staff were aware of how to protect people from abuse and report any concerns.

We saw that staff responded to people's needs promptly and found that the number of experienced staff on each shift was appropriate to provide people's care.

We found that a complaints procedure was in place and that people knew how to raise concerns at Hollybank.

Although the home was comfortable, clean and generally suitable for providing people's care, some of the door closure mechanisms were not working properly which meant that people were not fully protected in case of a fire occurring.

Reports under our old system of regulation (including those from before CQC was created)