The Care Quality Commission
  • Hospital
  • Independent hospital

Hollanden Park Hospital

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

Hollanden Park, Coldharbour Lane, Hildenborough, Tonbridge, TN11 9LE (01732) 833924

Provided and run by:
Renovo Hollanden Park Limited

All Inspections

20 July 2022

During a routine inspection

Our rating of this location improved. We rated it as requires improvement because:

  • There was no evidence that staff completed any training in rehabilitation skills.
  • The design of the handwashing basins did not comply with national guidance.
  • Staff did not always follow the service’s medicines management policy when recording administration of medicines.
  • Not all staff treated patients with compassion and kindness. Not all staff respected patient’s dignity or took account of their individual needs. Not all patients felt listened to by staff or able to make their own decisions. Feedback from patients indicated that patients who could not communicate verbally felt less listened to and less involved in decisions about their care and treatment than patients who could communicate verbally.
  • There was no formal vision or strategy for the service. There were limited processes to monitor and manage performance. The were no key performance indicators for the service to measure themselves against. The service did not benchmark performance and outcomes against other similar services.

However:

  • The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. The service managed safety incidents well and learned lessons from them. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept care records.
  • Staff gave patients enough to eat and drink, and mostly gave them pain relief when they needed it. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients. Key services were available seven days a week.
  • The service planned care to meet the needs of local people and made it easy for people to give feedback. People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for treatment.
  • Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities. The service had started to engage with patients and their families to plan and manage services and all staff were committed to improving services continually. Staff felt respected, supported and valued

22 and 29 September 2021

During a routine inspection

We are placing the service into special measures.

Services placed in special measures will be inspected again within six months. If insufficient improvements have been made such that there remains a rating of inadequate overall or for any key question or core service, we will take action in line with our enforcement procedures to begin the process of preventing the provider from operating the service. This will lead to cancelling their registration or to varying the terms of their registration within six months if they do not improve. The service will be kept under review and, if needed, could be escalated to urgent enforcement action. Where necessary another inspection will be conducted within a further six months, and if there is not enough improvement we will move to close the service by adopting our proposal to vary the provider’s registration to remove this location or cancel the provider’s registration.

We rated it as inadequate because:

  • Not all staff were compliant with mandatory training. The service reported a low compliance rate in key modules including safeguarding and life support training.
  • The premises and equipment did not always keep people safe. Clinical waste was not managed well.
  • Staff did not keep detailed records of patients’ care and treatment. Records were not always clear, up-to-date or reflective of the care provided.
  • The service did not always use systems and processes to safely administer and record the use of medicines.
  • Staff did not keep records of patch rotations or body placement for patients prescribed medicinal patches.
  • Staff did not always complete risk assessments for each patient in a prompt manner. They did not always act to remove or minimise risks or update the assessments when risks changed.
  • Incidents were not always effectively investigated to reduce the risk of potential harm from similar or repeated incidents.
  • Staff did not always give patients enough food and drink to meet their needs and improve their health.
  • Doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals did not always work together as a team to benefit patients.
  • Not all staff were able to describe what lessons were learnt from the incidents they reported. They were not aware of any changes to practice to prevent incidents from happening again.
  • Staff did not routinely involve patients and their families in making decisions about their care.
  • The service did not operate effective governance systems to improve the quality of services.
  • The culture of the service was not centred on the needs and experience of patients.

However:

  • Staff knew the patients they were caring for, including their preferences and medical histories.
  • Staff provided patients with timely care to minimise their distress.
  • Patients were assessed for pain regularly and received pain relief in a timely way.