Archived: Hollins Hall

People who live at Hollins Hall have access to a number of on-site facilities, which include a restaurant, swimming pool, exercise area, library and hairdressing salon.

Not everyone using the service receives regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided.

At our last inspection we rated the service Good. At this inspection, we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good. There was no evidence, or information from our inspection and on-going monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

The service had a registered manager. 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.

There were systems and processes in place to protect people from the risk of harm. Staff were able to tell us about different types of abuse and were aware of action they should take if abuse was suspected. They were confident that the registered manager would address any concerns.

Risk assessments were completed to reduce the risk of harm. Accidents or incidents were analysed to reduce the risk of reoccurrence.

Medicines were administered safely to people when they needed this support. Staff were aware of the infection control measures in place to reduce the risk of the spread of infection.

Staffing levels were sufficient to meet people's needs. There were safe recruitment and selection procedures in place and appropriate checks had been undertaken before staff began work. Staff received the support and training they needed to give them the necessary skills and knowledge to meet people's assessed needs.

People were supported to eat and drink to promote their wellbeing and staff supported access to healthcare where needed. Health professionals were contacted appropriately to ensure any changes to people's needs were addressed.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

There were positive interactions between people and staff. Staff knew people well and showed kindness, dignity and respect. Care was person centred and people were provided with choice.

The provider had a system in place for responding to people's concerns and complaints. People were regularly asked for their views. There were effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection. We spoke with people who used the service. We also spoke with the staff that supported them and we looked at records the service held.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read our full report.

Is the service safe?

People we spoke with told us they always felt safe. We looked at safeguarding procedures which were robust and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported.

People told us that they felt their rights and dignity were always respected.

We found there were safe systems in place to ensure that where people needed support with their medication, this was done safely and they were protected against the risks associated with medicines.

Systems were in place to make sure that the manager and staff learn from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduces the risks to people and helps the service to continually improve.

Staff knew about risk management plans and showed us examples where they had followed them. People were not put at unnecessary risk but also had access to choice and remained in control of decisions about their care and lives.

Some people we spoke with told us that they had emergency lifeline call bell (these are pendants worn by people living on site) and were activated by people in cases of emergency. Everyone we spoke with told us that this system helped to keep them safe.

We looked at the service's recruitment practice is and found this to be safe and thorough. No staff had been subject to disciplinary action. Policies and procedures were in place to make sure that unsafe practice can be identified and therefore people were protected.

Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs were assessed with them, and they were involved in developing their plans of care. People said that their care plans were up to date and reflected their current needs. From speaking with staff they were able to demonstrate a good understanding of people's care and support needs and knew people very well. One person told us 'They (the carers) always ask me if I am happy with the service.' Staff had received training to meet the needs of people they support in the community.

People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.

Is the service caring?

People told us that they were supported by kind and caring staff who knew them well. One person told us 'The care is excellent. The carers call every morning to help me get dressed and they know how I like things done.'

We spoke with six people who were supported by the service. We asked them for their views about the staff that supported them. Feedback from people was very positive. One person told us 'The carers are first class' another person said 'Everything works like clockwork. The carers are extremely good.' When speaking with staff it was clear that they genuinely cared for the people they supported.

Is the service responsive?

People's needs were assessed before the agency provided a service to them in their own home. People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes. People we spoke with told us they knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. They told us that complaints would be investigated and action taken as necessary. People also told us that there was a resident's forum that was held regularly at Hollins Hall. This ensured that people living at Hollins Hall had the opportunity to share their views about the service, which were then taken into account.

Is the service well-led?

The service had a quality assurance system, and records showed that identified problems and opportunities to change things for the better were addressed promptly. As a result the quality of the service was continuously improving.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the service and quality assurance processes were in place.

We spoke with four people who use the service, who told us about their experiences. Feedback was positive with comments including 'I am very well taken care of' and 'we are very lucky with our carers.'

We saw from people's care plans that people were supported to live as independently as possible. The agency had carried out a sufficient assessment of the needs of each person, and kept this under review, to enable appropriate care and support to be given.

The service had in place policies and procedures covering safeguarding and the protection of vulnerable adults. Staff were familiar with safeguarding and whistleblowing procedures and knew what to do in the event of abuse being suspected.

Records we looked at also confirmed that staff received good training in areas such as safeguarding adults, infection control and first aid. They also told us that they had received good induction training when they first began working at the home.

The provider carried out appropriate auditing of the service and sought feedback from people to ensure a good service was provided.