Holly Cottage

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

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery. We found that issues were dealt with in a timely manner and families were kept informed of what was going on.

Relatives spoke positively about the home and its employees. One family member informed us that the provider had always tried their best to accommodate family requests and that they had been particularly impressed by the manager's warmth when they visited their relative in the hospital for an assessment prior to moving into Holly Cottage. The provider had recently completed a family and relatives survey, which showed a general positive impression of the service.

This service scored 64 (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 aimed to make sure 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.

The staff members we spoke with had a positive attitude, were eager to help people be equal partners in decisions about their care. The staff informed us of the various approaches they had taken with individuals and knew people well.

Positive observations were made, with individuals receiving timely and appropriate support based on their needs. Using nonverbal clues, people seemed at ease and communicating well with the staff encouraging them.

We saw the activity board documented a variety of activities, such as going to the village hall for coffee mornings and pub nights, cooking, walks in the village, attending a social club for individuals with learning disabilities, drawing, and bowling. However, most recorded activities were very local and people tended to go for walks and access the local area only. The record of people’s daily activities was inconsistent. Although people enjoyed the local area, we found opportunities to engage with the wider community and increase people’s experiences were limited.

We found that people who chose to stay in their bedrooms during the day, still had staff coming in and offering them the opportunity to join others in the communal area.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported continuity. Staff consistently highlighted the significance of developing a thorough understanding of individuals to provide effective care. Additionally, Makaton and Picture Exchange systems were used to facilitate communication with people who could not express themselves using words.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People had information in accessible format. The Provider recently completed a resident’s survey, and this was presented in accessible format for people that had communication difficulties.

We observed that picture menus were used to support people’s choices. Across the home, there were picture directions for people. However, the care planning was online and was not easily accessible to people.

Easy read and accessible information was available to consider people’s needs and legislation in line with The Data Protection Act 2018 and meeting accessible communication standards 2016. People had regular reviews with families and other professionals involved.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. We saw staff informing people of upcoming appointments.

The provider had recently completed a survey in which people and relatives gave their opinion on the care they were receiving. The provider ensured that this information was supplied to people in accessible format. However, it did not specify who had supported people to complete the surveys, especially for people who lacked capacity to complete the form independently. This meant we could not be fully assured the information was accurately reflected in each person’s survey.

Staff told us that they felt valued, and the managers always made time to listen to them when issues arose. Staff told us that they had frequent staff meetings and supervisions during which they were able to express themselves.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. A variety of services were available to people, and there was adequate staffing to guarantee that no appointments were missed. The service had vehicles which could be used to support access into the community for activities and health appointments. There were longstanding relationships with some healthcare professionals, who had been visiting the home for many years. Home visits were organised for people who were unable to attend appointments in the community Staff organised events with individuals. Staff expressed confidence in their ability to assist the people who used the service. They told us that their jobs were made easier by people's constant desire for new experiences.

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. A family member told us that, 'The staff are approachable, and the culture within the home is positive and nurturing.'

We reviewed a person’s care plan who was cared for in bed, and their care plan outlined a range of activities staff could offer them daily. The team leader reviewed all care plans monthly and any changes were noted and shared with staff.

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.

Some people had Respect forms in place. These documented people’s wishes should they require resuscitation, and had been put in place following admission into hospital. However, the service had not supported people to explore this further and record their wishes in more detail. The provider told us people’s aspirations were captured in care plans, but this also needed to be documented more robustly.