CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Hollybank Rest Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control arrangements covered visitors, social distancing, shielding, admissions, testing, hygiene and the infection control policy. They signposted the provider to resources to develop its approach.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, September 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection control and found several good ways to support safe visiting.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 27 August 2020. It looked only at infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors were assured that the home was managing visitors, social distancing, shielding, admissions, testing, hygiene and its infection control policy. They also found practical arrangements to help people keep in touch with relatives.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give an overall quality rating or a rated judgement for the other four areas.
Safer visiting
Visits were arranged by appointment and staggered. A visiting room with a clear screen, an iPad and window visits helped people stay in contact with relatives.
“Visits were by appointment and staggered to minimise visitor numbers.” from the report
Support for staff health
Staff with health or family health concerns were supported to shield. The rota allowed staff to attend testing, and a new staff member self-isolated and was tested before starting.
“The registered manager arranged the staff rota to enable all staff to attend testing on Thursdays.” from the report
Contingency planning
The home had community links that could help in an emergency, including access to a local restaurant's freezers for food storage.
“Contingency planning demonstrated good community links and networking.” from the report
Infection control assurance
Inspectors were assured that the home was managing infection risks in several important areas, including admissions, testing, premises and its policy.
“We were assured that the provider was meeting shielding and social distancing rules.” from the report
Further development suggested
minorInspectors signposted the provider to resources to develop its infection prevention and control approach. The report does not explain what specific improvement was needed.
“We have also signposted the provider to resources to develop their approach.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to infection prevention and control since the inspection?
- 02How are visits currently arranged, and is the designated visiting room still available?
- 03How are residents and staff currently tested, and what happens if someone has health concerns?
- 04What action was taken after inspectors signposted the home to resources to develop its infection control approach?
- 05How are new residents admitted safely and supported with infection control?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control measures only, so it did not provide ratings for the other areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 September 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.
What inspectors found, June 2018
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, responsive care, but medicines management and some safety records still required improvement.
Inspectors visited unannounced over two days in May 2018. They spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and health professionals. They reviewed care records, recruitment files, medicines records and management information.
The overall rating was Good. Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Good. Safe was rated Requires Improvement because some medicines records were incomplete, recruitment checks were not always robust and care records did not always reflect assessed risks.
There had been progress since the February 2017 inspection, when the service was rated Requires Improvement and had breached the medicines regulation. However, inspectors still found ongoing concerns with medicines recording. They also found enough experienced staff, good safeguarding practice, a clean home and positive relationships between people and staff.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors saw warm, patient interactions and found that people's privacy, dignity and independence were respected.
“People were cared for by staff that were kind and caring and with whom they had developed good relationships.” from the report
Meaningful activities
People were offered a wide range of activities, including gardening, music, themed events and outings. The home also helped people stay involved in the local community.
“A particular strength of the service was its commitment to ensure people remained part of their local community.” from the report
Enough experienced staff
Staffing levels matched the planned rota and were kept under review. A regular bank staff team meant people were supported by staff familiar with their needs.
“There were sufficient numbers of experienced staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Positive leadership
People, relatives and staff said the management was approachable and well organised. The home used audits and an improvement plan to monitor quality and safety.
“There were systems in place to assess and monitor the quality and safety of the service.” from the report
Medicines records
seriousTopical cream records were incomplete, and staff did not always record why 'as required' medicines were given or why medicines were not given. Some records had gaps or unclear instructions.
“In the absence of the records confirming this, the provider could not be reassured that people were receiving their topical creams as prescribed.” from the report
Care and fluid records
needs fixingSome risk assessments were not updated promptly after changes in mobility or skin condition. Fluid charts were not being totalled daily, so they did not clearly show how much people had drunk.
“Where used, the charts were not being totalled daily and did not provide a clear record of the actual amount of fluids drunk.” from the report
Recruitment checks
needs fixingThree staff records had unexplained gaps in employment history. One person's references did not provide enough evidence about their previous social care performance.
“The recruitment practices and checks were not always sufficiently robust.” from the report
- 01What checks are now made to confirm that topical creams have been given as prescribed?
- 02How are 'as required' medicines, missed doses and handwritten medicines records checked for accuracy?
- 03How do you record and review people's fluid intake, weight loss and risks to their skin?
- 04What checks do you complete on employment gaps and references before staff start work?
- 05What actions from the improvement plan have been completed since this inspection?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service and all five key questions, including checks on whether improvements had been made since the February 2017 inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 June 2018 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 Hollybank Rest Home
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- September 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- June 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2017Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 March 2015.
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
26 live-in carers within about an hour of Hampshire
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 £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
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.