You are here

Archived: Hollycroft Care Home Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 4 July 2017

Hollycroft care home is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 30 people. People who live at Hollycroft care home are predominantly older people and people living with dementia. The home is situated in a residential area in Ilkley. On the day of the inspection 17 people were living in the home.

A registered manager was in post, but had recently stepped down from the role. We reminded them of the need to correctly deregister with the Commission. An interim manager was in place whist the service recruited another 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.

At the last inspection in July 2016 we rated the service ‘requires improvement’ overall and identified two breaches of regulation. This was because there was a lack of evidence the service was acting within the legal framework of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and medicines were not safely managed. We found improvement had been made at this inspection.

People and relatives spoke positively about the overall standard of care provided. They said care was appropriate and met people’s individual needs. They said staff were friendly and knew them well.

Medicines were safely managed. People received their medicines as prescribed and clear records were maintained.

People told us they felt safe living in the home. Safeguarding procedures were in place which were understood by staff. Risks to people’s health and safety were assessed and regularly reviewed to help ensure people were kept safe.

Although on the day of the inspection, staffing levels were reduced due to last minute sickness, we concluded that overall, there were enough staff deployed to ensure people received timely and appropriate care. Safe recruitment procedures were in place to ensure people were of suitable character to work with vulnerable people.

The premises was safely managed. A full time maintenance worker was employed to ensure the premises was kept safe and suitable for its intended purpose.

People and relatives praised staff and said they had the right skills to care for them. Staff received a range of training and supervision relevant to their role.

People’s consent was sought before care and support was offered. The service was acting within the legal framework of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Where people lacked capacity to make decisions, best interest processes were followed.

People had access to a choice of food and risk and appropriate action was taken where people were at risk of malnutrition.

We observed care and found staff were kind, caring and treated people well. Staff demonstrated they knew people well and had formed positive relationships with them.

People’s care needs were assessed and clear and person centred care plans were put in place. These were subject to regular review and demonstrated the service responded to people’s changing needs.

Although a dedicated activities co-ordinator was not employed we saw staff provided people with a number of activities to ensure their social needs were met.

We found a number of improvements had been made to the service over recent months. We would need evidence these were sustained over time to be assured the service was well led. A range of audits and checks were undertaken to identify and rectify any issues that arose.

People’s feedback was sought and used to make improvements to the service.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 4 July 2017

The service was safe.

Improvements had been made to the way medicines were managed. Medicines were now managed safely and people received their medicines as prescribed.

People said they felt safe living in the home. Staff understood how to keep people safe and any risks to people�s health and safety were assessed to reduce the risk of harm.

The premises was homely and safely managed with regular maintenance taking place.

Overall there were sufficient staff to ensure people�s needs were met. Safe recruitment procedures were in place to help ensure staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people.

Effective

Good

Updated 4 July 2017

The service was effective.

People told us staff had the right skills and knowledge to care for them. Staff received a range of training, supervision and support.

People�s nutritional needs were met. Measures were in place to provide additional nutrition to people who were losing weight.

The service was acting within the legal framework of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

Caring

Good

Updated 4 July 2017

The service was caring.

People and relatives spoke positively about staff and said they were kind and caring. Staff demonstrated a good knowledge of the people they were caring for.

We saw people were listened to and their choices respected.

We identified some care records were not kept confidentially, this was immediately rectified during the inspection.

Responsive

Good

Updated 4 July 2017

The service was responsive.

People and relatives said appropriate care and support was provided by the service. People�s care needs were assessed and clear and person centred plans of care put in place.

Although an activities co-ordinator was not in place, people had access to activities which were undertaken by care staff on a daily basis.

A system was in place to log, investigate and respond to complaints.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 4 July 2017

Recent improvements had been made to the service. We would need evidence of sustained improvement to be assured the service was well led.

People and relatives praise the overall quality of the service. Staff said they felt people received good quality care and that the staff team was effective.

People�s feedback was regularly sought, valued and used to make improvements to the service.