Hollyveer House

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

This is the first assessment for this service under the current provider.

This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

This service scored 54 (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 not always checked people’s care and support was meeting their needs and preferences effectively. People’s care needs were assessed prior to them receiving support. However, this information was not always adequately personalised and detailed. People’s care documentation had not always been monitored to ensure it remained up to date and accurately reflected their current needs.

The provider had not always ensured people were fully involved in the planning and delivery of their care. People’s care plans did not always contain important information relating to their support needs. For example, records relating to people’s eating and drinking needs were not always detailed and accurate. This meant there was a risk staff may not have the correct information about how to support people appropriately.

The provider worked with other healthcare professionals to provide consistency when supporting people to access different health services. For example, processes were in place to manage people being admitted and discharged safely from hospital.

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could not always maximise their independence, choice and control. People’s care plans did not always contain sufficient detail about how to promote and monitor their health and wellbeing. People’s daily care records did not always clearly identify concerns relating to people’s health so prompt action could be taken. We received mixed feedback from people and relatives about how well their emotional wellbeing was supported.

The provider did not routinely monitor people’s care and support to continuously improve it. The provider did not always have robust processes in place to monitor people’s health and promptly identify issues of concern. This meant there was a risk people may not receive consistently good outcomes. People were not always involved in reviewing their own care.The monthly reviews completed for each person did not always evidence any involvement from the person or their relatives. This meant it was not clear how people’s feedback was being gathered in order to improve their experience of care.

People’s capacity to make decisions was not always clearly documented within their care plans. We found contradictory and unclear information about whether people were able to make decisions about important aspects of their care. Mental capacity assessments were not always in place or completed accurately. This meant there was a risk staff may not know how to support people’s decision making appropriately to ensure they received safe care.