Archived: The Hollies

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people were not always supported and treated with dignity and respect or involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 50 (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 always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

One person told us, “The words I would use to describe the carers’ is nice and kind.” We observed both people were well-presented, and 1 person told us, “The manager gives me a shave each day.”

Feedback received from relatives was positive. One relative told us, “The carers are extremely good. They know [name] well. They know when they want to go to bed. They take [name] out, such as shopping.” Another relative told us, “I am very happy with [name]’s care and the carers are positive and caring.”

We observed the registered manager, volunteer manager and maintenance staff member all treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion. For example, staff spoke with people using a gentle tone of voice in a supportive way.

The registered manager gave us examples of how they promoted privacy and dignity toward people, telling us “I would always cover a person with a towel when supporting them with personal care.” One staff member told us, “I always knock on bedroom doors, and when supporting with personal care, cover a person with a towel.”

The provider and staff team did not always demonstrate they were committed to ensuring support was person-centred in meeting people’s aspirations or that people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences.The provider did not always demonstrate how they took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Both the registered manager and volunteer manager told us people were happy to agree to do the same things, such as going out together or 2 people stayed home with the registered manager while the volunteer manager took the other person out in the community. As the volunteer manager offered only 10 hours a week, we asked the registered manager how they would meet people’s individual needs if people wished to do different things. The registered manager told us as this had not occurred, they had no plan in place around this. This meant that whilst the registered manager had a desire to deliver person-centred care, it was difficult to determine how this was possible in practice if people wanted to do different activities. This increased the risk that people's individual preferences, aspirations and choices may not always be recognised, or consistently supported. Whilst the registered manager knew people well, there was insufficient information available to demonstrate how support would remain personalised if another person needed to provide care or support in their absence.

Care records did not always demonstrate how the registered manager took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics. This meant that in the event of agency staff being used in an emergency situation, written information available would not always provide the full detail needed to ensure care and support was provided safely.

People were happy for the volunteer manager to show us their bedrooms. These were personalised and reflected what was important to each person. On a day-to-day basis at the home, the registered manager did take account of people’s strengths. For example, 1 person told us, “I can dress myself, but the manager helps me with having a wash.”

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

For example, the volunteer manager told us 1 person did not always get dressed in daytime clothing as they associated this with going out in the community and stood at the gate; thinking they were going out into the community. We asked whether this meant the person was indicating a choice that they would like to go out, but we were told that unless an outing was planned for, this person was dressed by staff in nighttime clothing (during the day), so they did not become anxious standing at the gate. This meant people’s opportunities in having choice and control over their own care were potentially restricted by not having the ability for spontaneous plans to go out. This demonstrated that service arrangements were influencing people's choices, rather than support being organised around the person's wishes and preferences. People were not always being supported to exercise the same level of choice and control over their daily lives as would be expected in a person-centred service.

Independence was promoted in some areas of daily living, and choice was observed during our visit, with individuals able to decide where they wished to spend their time, such as sitting in the lounge, spending time in their bedroom or moving around the home. People were relaxed in their home environment during our visit. However, opportunities for people to exercise choice and control were not consistently embedded throughout the service.

Staff did not always have the ability to respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

We could not be assured that the registered manager would always be able to respond to people’s immediate needs, for example during the nighttime. There was currently no means by which people could alert the registered manager if they needed support during the nighttime, such as feeling poorly, when the registered manager was the only staff member in the building and was sleeping. There was currently no intercom system in place and no call bells available to people which meant there may be potential delays in meeting people’s immediate needs.

During the day of our visit, we observed people’s immediate needs were responded to by the registered and volunteer managers.

The provider did not promote the wellbeing of their staff or support and enable staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Improvements were needed in how the registered manager promoted the wellbeing of volunteer staff. For example, no risk assessments had been undertaken to ensure any support needs of volunteers were considered.

Improvements were needed by the registered manager to offer training and guidance to volunteer staff to give them the skills and knowledge to deliver person-centred care. For example, none had completed any training in supporting people with a learning disability, autism or mental health support needs.

Team meetings and supervisions did not take place between volunteer staff and the registered manager. However, the volunteer manager told us, “We just chat whenever I am here about anything needed.”