Holmhurst Care Home

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 service met people’s needs. This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service strived to ensure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. People’s care and support was person-centred.

Care was coordinated to maximise independence and planned to incorporate people’s choices and preferences. For example, people could choose when they woke up and what they wanted to wear and eat.

Staff told us they meet people prior to providing care and support and they knew about people’s needs as the information was contained within people’s care notes and risk assessments. Staff also told us they have enough time to give people individualised support.

The registered manager told us, “During the induction, we let staff know we treat people as we would want our own family to be treated. We build close relationships with people. This is so they feel able to talk to us. In daily notes and handover, we can also pick up people’s views and wishes.”

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. People received care and support which was co-ordinated and worked in their best interests.

People’s care needs were assessed to ensure staff were available to provide support at a time of their choosing.

The registered manager told us, “We work with social workers, GP’s, paramedics, clinicians, and the local council. If someone is acutely unwell, we have to decide who to go to, GP, 111 or 999. We have regular meetings with social workers. We have a GP surgery we advise people to use, they come in and do a weekly round. If someone, wanted to use a different surgery that would be fine.”

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People’s communication needs and preferences were clearly recorded in care plans.

We spoke with a person who had recently moved into the home. They told us they would like a calendar and clock in their bedroom. We spoke with the provider about this who were responsive and ensured these items were in the person’s bedroom the next day.

The registered manager told us, “We don’t support anyone at the moment who needs accessible information, however, if needed, we could make documents in easy read, large print or printed in braille if needed. We could also arrange for a reader.”

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment, and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

There was an accessible complaints process for people to follow. We reviewed the providers complaints log, however, there were no complaints from people.

People living in the home were asked for their views in a variety of formats these included in daily conversations and regular meetings. The provider sent out surveys to people to gain their feedback. The feedback received was positive.

The registered manager told us they would investigate complaints and share outcomes with people.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support, and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Staff understood the needs of people with a mental health condition and worked hard to ensure that typical barriers faced by people were removed or mitigated against. Each person had an up-to-date hospital passport in place. This could be shared with other professionals and reduced potential barriers to care within the health and social care system.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support, and treatment in response to this.

Staff treated people as individuals and adjusted care and support to meet individuals’ needs and preferences. Staff understood how the Equality Act (2010) applied to their role. The provider had an up to date, robust policy in place.

The registered manager and staff gave us several examples of how people’s outcomes had been improved since living at the service.

People were 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.

Although end of life care was not required at this time, people were 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. This meant the provider had considered people’s future and end of life planning to ensure if people’s health were to deteriorate, staff would know how people wanted to be cared for at the end of their lives. Where people did not want to discuss end of life care this was respected and plans were in place to revisit this with the person.