Hollyfield House Also known as Your Healthcare Domiciliary Care Agency

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

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.

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

People had no concerns about the staff team providing them care and support. One person told us, “I’ve been with them for 6 or 7 weeks. They have helped me a lot and I feel safe with them. I can ask them to help with most things.” A relative said, “ [Family member] is safe with staff.”

The provider had used learning about people’s experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as guidance from safeguarding professionals, to support people to live safely at home. During the assessment process, staff asked key questions designed to encourage people to talk about their safety at home. This helped staff identify concerns people might have about this. Staff were prompted to make sure people were comfortable and able to speak freely and in confidence. People’s responses were recorded on their records which helped managers check appropriate actions had been taken by staff to safeguard people, where this was needed.

Staff understood their duty and responsibility to safeguard people and were well supported to report any concerns to the relevant people and agencies. A staff member told us, “If we had concerns, we would raise this. I would report the concern to a senior staff member.”

The provider always shared concerns quickly and appropriately. Staff worked proactively with all the relevant agencies and healthcare providers to ensure people were safeguarded from risk.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

People were supported to stay safe as they worked towards rebuilding confidence and ability in undertaking the tasks of daily living. One person told us, “They helped me get washed and dressed and without them I would not have done that. I would have just stayed in bed.” Another person said, “They are well trained to help me, and I felt safe with them and more motivated to do things.” Staff made sure people understood risks to their safety. A staff member told us, “We explain risks to people so that they understand the risks to them.” Another staff member said, “I had a person the other day that appeared agile and fit but then in conversation told me [they were] reaching up to high cupboards. I have reported this to the occupational therapist for additional support for the person.”

Senior staff undertook detailed assessments with people and obtained key information about risks to their safety and how these should be mitigated. This information was shared with staff, who understood safety risks to people and how these should be managed to keep them safe.

Senior staff undertook a daily review of people’s records to check staff were following plans to manage risk as well as identifying any new or emerging risk to people. The registered manager told us, “The reablement practitioners [senior staff members] read the care notes daily to see how people are doing. If there are risks identified they check that staff are aware of those risks and following the measures in place.” A healthcare professional, who worked closely with the service, said, “The reablement practitioners are competent in reassessing needs, for example, equipment changes or increases in packages of care and regularly do this with people on their caseload.”

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

The provider made sure suitably skilled and experienced staff were allocated to people’s package of care. One person told us, “I have 3 regular carers who are really good. They are all excellent.” A relative said, “The carers are good at what they do, which is really just washing, but they do bring [family member] downstairs on the stairlift safely.” A healthcare professional, who worked closely with the service, told us, “They [staff team] have a wealth of skills and experience to support high risk patients in the community.”

Staff worked well together in teams to make sure people’s needs were met. A staff member told us, “This is a small team, but we work really well together, and the trust is there.”

Staff received regular and relevant training to help them meet people’s needs. They were supported to continuously learn and improve in their roles through supervision meetings and appraisals of their work performance. A staff member said about supervision meetings, “They are helpful and helping us in our role.”

There were safe recruitment practices at the service. The provider carried out the necessary checks required on staff that applied to work at the service to make sure they were suitable to support people.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.