CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Hollins Park
Rated Outstanding: inspectors found the home performing exceptionally well.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Staffing was sufficient and consistent, medicines were managed safely, and accidents and incidents were reviewed. Inspectors identified issues with storage of thickening agents and medicines for disposal, and with one infection-control practice, but the home acted on these during the inspection.
- Effective?
- Outstanding
- Care planning was detailed and based on each person's life history, needs, choices and cultural beliefs. Staff were highly skilled, worked closely with health professionals and achieved outcomes that inspectors described as better than expected.
- Caring?
- Outstanding
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff supported independence, listened to people's views and helped people take part in decisions about their care and the home.
- Responsive?
- Outstanding
- Support was highly personalised and included a wide range of activities, community links and individual interests. End-of-life care was tailored to people's wishes, and concerns were dealt with promptly through an open-door approach.
- Well-led?
- Outstanding
- The management team created a positive, inclusive culture with a stable and skilled staff team. Quality checks were extensive, and action plans were used to address issues and improve the service.
What inspectors found, July 2019
Rated Outstanding overall; inspectors found exceptional care, while two safety points were corrected during the visit.
This was an unannounced inspection on 21 and 22 May 2019. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and visiting professionals. They also observed care, checked records and considered information from other organisations.
The home was rated Outstanding overall. Effective care, kindness, personalised support and leadership were all rated Outstanding. Safe was rated Good. Inspectors found enough consistent staff, safe medicines practice, good safeguarding and strong infection control, although two safety issues were identified and corrected during the inspection.
The report describes care that was tailored to each person. People were supported to make choices, stay active, maintain relationships and receive individual end-of-life care. The previous overall rating was Good, published in December 2016. Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led improved from Good to Outstanding, while Safe remained Good.
Personalised care
The home built a detailed understanding of each person's history, preferences and needs. Inspectors found that this led to very positive outcomes, including for people who had previously been in crisis.
“The service went above and beyond to ensure people, relatives and associated professionals were at the heart of assessment, care planning and care delivery.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors observed attentive and discreet care. People and relatives said staff listened to them and treated them with dignity.
“Without exception we were told, and observed, that people were treated with the utmost dignity and respect.” from the report
Activities and community life
People had many personalised activities and opportunities to take part in local life. Staff helped people pursue interests, fulfil wishes and maintain relationships.
“People had access to an exceptional range of bespoke activities which enabled them to live fulfilled and active lives.” from the report
Skilled and consistent staff
The home had an established staff team with strong training and development. Staff were supported to build skills that could be used across different roles.
“There was an extremely stable and consistent staff team who were highly skilled and motivated.” from the report
Strong management checks
The management team used audits and action plans to monitor care and address issues. Inspectors saw evidence that identified actions had been completed.
“There was a robust and extensive quality assurance system in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service.” from the report
Storage and disposal checks
needs fixingInspectors raised concerns about the safe storage of fluid thickening agents and medicines waiting for disposal. The management team took corrective action by the next morning.
“On the first day of inspection we provided feedback to the registered manager about safe storage of fluid thickening agents and medicines due for disposal.” from the report
Infection-control practice
needs fixingOne staff member was observed not following the home's infection-control policy. The manager acted immediately, reminded staff of the requirements and introduced extra checks.
“However, we observed a member of staff who was not following the provider's policy.” from the report
- 01How are fluid thickening agents stored now, and how are medicines awaiting disposal checked?
- 02What extra infection-control checks were introduced after the inspection, and who reviews them?
- 03How do you assess staffing levels when people's needs change, including at night and during staff absence?
- 04How will you learn about my relative's history, preferences, communication needs and cultural beliefs before care starts?
- 05How are activities and end-of-life wishes recorded and reviewed for each person?
This was a planned, unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five rating areas, as well as the premises and care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 July 2019 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, December 2016
Rated Good in all five areas; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care with effective management oversight.
Inspectors visited on 16 and 23 November 2016. They spoke with people living at the home, relatives, visitors, staff and managers. They reviewed care plans, medicine records, accident records, surveys and quality checks.
The home was supporting 49 people living with dementia. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment checks and staff who understood safeguarding, risks and medicines. People had access to healthcare and were supported with food and drink.
People were treated with kindness and respect. Staff knew people's likes, dislikes and personal histories. Care plans were reviewed when needs changed, and people and families were encouraged to give their views.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means the inspection found the service met the standards expected at that time, but Good is not the same as perfect or a guarantee about future care.
Safeguarding and risk management
Staff understood how to recognise and report abuse. Individual risks were assessed, and inspectors saw action taken to reduce hazards and respond after an accident.
“People were protected from the risks of abuse by a staff team who knew how to recognise signs and knew what to do if they had concerns.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People described staff positively. Inspectors saw staff spending time with people, offering reassurance and supporting privacy, dignity and independence.
“People had positive and friendly relationships with the staff who supported them.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included personal preferences and important life events. Staff could describe what people liked, disliked and how they wanted to spend their time.
“The care and support plans we saw were individual to the person and contained information staff members needed to know in order to assist them.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People took part in activities such as outings, games and afternoon tea. Relatives and friends could visit freely and were encouraged to join activities.
“People were also supported by activity coordinators to take part in things they found interesting and enjoyable.” from the report
Listening and improvement
The home held meetings and surveys and acted on feedback. Inspectors saw examples of suggestions being used to plan improvements and change practice.
“The provider and management team had systems in place to monitor the quality of service provision.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How have the management arrangements changed since the registered manager's planned career break?
- 02How are my relative's individual risks assessed and reviewed when their needs change?
- 03How do you check that medicines are given safely and that any errors are acted on?
- 04What activities are available that match my relative's interests and life history?
- 05How will my family member and I be involved in care plan reviews and raising concerns?
This was an inspection of the overall service covering all five CQC questions, based on visits over two days and discussions with people, relatives, visitors, staff and managers. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 December 2016 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Hollins Park
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Good to Outstanding.
- July 2019Outstandingcurrent ratingup from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: OutstandingCaring: OutstandingResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Outstanding
- December 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 January 2011.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Cheshire East
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £980 to £1,260 a week. 88 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“She is an exemplary carer, she is knowledgable empathetic and very respectful in the home.”
“He developed a close affinity with Terence, spending time talking with him before he retired to bed and looking after his needs during the night.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.