CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Holly Bush Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home was using protective equipment safely, arranging testing, managing infection risks and facilitating visits in line with guidance.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not rated in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not rated in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not rated in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not rated in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, June 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection control and visiting arrangements were protecting people.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 11 February 2022. Inspectors looked mainly at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and whether COVID-19 staffing pressures affected the home.
Inspectors found good practice. Visitors were screened, asked to test and supported to use protective equipment and wash their hands. The home offered garden visits and window visits from a minibus so families could keep in contact.
The home had infection control policies, staff training, testing, vaccines and enough protective equipment. Inspectors were assured about the infection control measures, but they did not give a rating for the service.
Safe visiting
The home arranged visits in advance, screened visitors and supported them with testing, protective equipment and hand washing. It also offered garden and window visits.
“The service also facilitated outdoor garden visits, which meant families were able to see their relatives in the safety of the outdoors and following social distancing guidelines.” from the report
Infection control training
Staff had infection control training and inspectors observed them using protective equipment effectively.
“Staff had received training on Infection Prevention Control (IPC) provided via external organisations as well as online training provided by the service.” from the report
Protective equipment
The home had enough protective equipment to meet people's needs during the pandemic.
“The service had ensured there were sufficient supplies of PPE.” from the report
Regular checks
Managers checked staff testing records daily and monitored infection control practice, providing further training when needed.
“Managers completed daily visual checks on staff testing registers to make sure all staff on shift had completed lateral flow testing.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How have your visiting arrangements changed since the inspection on 11 February 2022?
- 02How do you currently manage staffing pressures linked to COVID-19 or other infections?
- 03How do you make sure staff and visiting professionals meet the current vaccination or exemption requirements?
- 04How often do you check staff infection control practice and provide further training?
- 05Do you currently have enough protective equipment and testing supplies?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19 staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated and the other care questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 June 2022 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, April 2020
Rated Good in all five areas; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some further work suggested on end-of-life discussions.
This was an unannounced inspection on 31 December 2019. One inspector reviewed information from before the visit, spoke with professionals, observed care, checked four people's care records and examined management records. People could not be interviewed because of their complex needs.
Inspectors found that people were protected from abuse, risks were assessed, medicines were managed safely and there were enough staff. Staff were trained, worked with health professionals and supported people's choices, independence, privacy and dignity.
Care was personalised and included different ways for people to communicate, activities and support to keep in touch with family and friends. The home had systems to check quality and make improvements. The overall rating was Good, and each of the five areas was also rated Good.
Risk management
Risks to people's safety and wellbeing were assessed, managed and reviewed. Emergency plans and personal evacuation plans were also in place.
“There were comprehensive risk assessments in place. These were kept under review, which ensured that risks to people's safety and wellbeing were monitored and managed properly.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff supporting people in a friendly and respectful way. Staff promoted privacy, dignity and independence rather than doing everything for people.
“We observed kind, caring and spontaneous interactions between people and staff.” from the report
Communication and activities
The home used several communication methods, including pictures, gestures and signing systems. People took part in varied activities and were supported to maintain relationships.
“There was a wide range of approaches to support people to communicate, including facial expression, gestures, objects of reference” from the report
Quality monitoring
The home carried out checks on care, medicines, health and safety, maintenance and infection control. Inspectors found that issues identified through these checks were acted on.
“All issues identified were then acted upon.” from the report
End-of-life discussions
needs fixingNobody was receiving end-of-life care during the inspection. Some advance wishes were recorded, but inspectors asked the home to find more creative ways to discuss end-of-life care with people, including through advocacy organisations.
“In some examples, we discussed with the registered manger the need to find creative ways of engaging people in discussions about end of life care, by involving advocacy organisations.” from the report
- 01How will you involve my relative, advocates and family in discussions about end-of-life wishes?
- 02How would you communicate with my relative if they use gestures, pictures, sounds or signing rather than speech?
- 03How often would you review my relative's care plan, and how would you tell us about any changes?
- 04What activities would be suitable for my relative, and how would you support them to keep in touch with family and friends?
- 05How do you check that medicines, risks and staffing arrangements remain safe for my relative?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the care provided and the care home premises; people using the service were not interviewed because of their complex needs. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 April 2020 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 Holly Bush Nursing Home
4 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 12 June 2012.
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 Harrow
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 £1,330 a week. 81 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She handled the new situation in front of her with such professionalism and I felt I could trust her 100%.”
“I can truly say that Peter always put Dad at the centre of everything and I know that they found a great friendship in difficult times.”
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.