Hollyveer House

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

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

This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 57 (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 ensured people’s care was person-centred. People’s care plans were not sufficiently detailed to fully reflect their likes, dislikes and what was important to them. Daily care records were task-focused and did not always demonstrate how people’s social and emotional support needs were being met. During the inspection, we found there was a lack of personalised activities and it was not clear how people were being engaged in meaningful activities which suited their individual preferences. For example, during the inspection we observed a film playing in a lounge where people were living with dementia. People had not been offered any alternatives or asked if they wanted this particular film. Nobody in the lounge appeared to be watching the film and the content of the film did not appear appropriate to the needs and preferences of the people in the room. Later that day, staff put the same film on again in the same lounge. This did not demonstrate meaningful, person-centred engagement.

The provider had responded flexibly to meet people’s diverse care needs. For example, providing shorter term respite placements where appropriate and creating a space within the service where relatives could stay to spend time with people. The provider worked in partnership with other healthcare services where necessary to promote continuity in people’s care.

The provider had not always ensured information was available in formats tailored to people’s individual needs. During the inspection, we found there was a lack of pictorial and accessible information available throughout the service to support people’s decision-making. For example, we found there were no pictorial menus and staff did not use visual aids to support people in making choices about what they would like to eat.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas or raise complaints about their care and support. The provider did not routinely ask people or those important to them for feedback via surveys or questionnaires and this meant they were not always able to demonstrate how they were listening to people’s views. We received mixed feedback from people and relatives about how well the provider listened to their concerns. Where complaints had been made, the documentation in place did not always reflect how these concerns had been managed. For example, no actions, outcome or learning had been recorded.

The provider engaged with a range of different health and social care professionals to ensure people had access to the services they needed. Adjustments to how and when people accessed these services were made as required to meet people’s needs. People and those important to them knew who the managers were and where to access them during office hours. Where managers were not on site an on-call process was in place for staff to request management support in case of an emergency.

The provider had not fully considered the needs of people who were more likely to encounter inequality in experience or outcomes. During the inspection, we found people living with dementia were not always receiving meaningful engagement and support. People’s mental health needs had not always been fully considered and there was a lack of detailed guidance about how to support people’s mental health and ensure any concerns were managed appropriately.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. People had future planning care plans in place which considered their end of life care. However, these were brief and lacked sufficient detail about how to provide person-centred care in accordance with the person’s wishes.