CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Hollymede Cottage
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home was managing infection risks, including visiting, protective equipment, testing, admissions, cleaning and outbreak prevention. This was a focused inspection of infection prevention and control.
- 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?
- Requires improvement
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, September 2021
Hollymede Cottage was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good COVID-19 infection control and visiting arrangements.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 31 March 2021. It looked at infection prevention and control measures during the COVID-19 pandemic, rather than giving a full service rating.
Inspectors found up-to-date arrangements for visits and healthcare professionals. They also found visitor controls, staff risk assessments, effective use of protective equipment, testing arrangements and suitable cleaning and hygiene measures.
People's wellbeing was supported by staff who knew them. The home had increased activities and used social media to help people keep in touch with family and friends.
The service was marked 'Inspected but not rated'. This means the inspection did not provide a new overall quality rating or a full rating for all five areas.
Visitor safety
The home had current visiting guidance and a visitor management process intended to reduce infection risks.
“There was a robust visitor management procedure in place to ensure people were kept safe.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control measures were good, including protective equipment, testing, hygiene and outbreak planning.
“We were assured that this service met good infection prevention and control guidelines.” from the report
Wellbeing and activities
Staff knew people well and the home had increased activities and social engagement.
“People's well-being was looked after by staff who knew them well.” from the report
Contact with families
The home used several social media platforms to help people stay connected with friends and family.
“The home provided several social media platforms to help people stay in touch with their friends and families.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What are the current visiting arrangements, and how do they compare with the arrangements described in this report?
- 02How are staff and residents currently tested, and what happens if someone tests positive?
- 03How does the home prevent and manage infection outbreaks now?
- 04What activities and social contact are currently available to residents?
- 05How are healthcare professionals currently given the home's visiting and infection control guidance?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control under Safe; the service was inspected but not rated and the other areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 September 2021 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 2018
Rated Good overall, but well-led Requires Improvement because there was no registered manager in post.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 7 March 2018. Inspectors observed care, spoke with people, relatives, staff and a health professional, and checked care records, staff files, training, rotas and management records.
The home was rated Good for safe, effective, caring and responsive care. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines, suitable training, kind and respectful care, individual care plans, access to healthcare and activities. People and relatives were positive about the service.
The well-led rating was Requires Improvement because there was no registered manager in post, although an experienced manager had been recruited and planned to apply for registration. The home had quality checks and asked people for their views.
The overall rating stayed Good, matching the previous inspection in October 2015. The report made a recommendation about meeting the Accessible Information Standards, as this was not yet being actively identified or applied.
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs without rushing. Medicines were stored and given safely, correctly and on time.
“People received their medicines in a safe way and on time.” from the report
Kind, respectful care
Staff knew people well and supported their dignity, privacy, choices and independence. Inspectors saw calm and caring interactions.
“Staff treated people with dignity and respect and were sensitive to their needs regarding equality, diversity and their human rights.” from the report
Individual support
Care plans included people's physical, mental, emotional and social needs, as well as their interests and preferences. Staff responded when needs changed.
“Each person had detailed care plans in place that identified how their assessed needs were to be met.” from the report
Food and healthcare
People could choose what, when and where to eat. Staff monitored nutrition risks and helped people access GPs and other healthcare professionals.
“People chose what they wanted to eat and we saw people had access to a variety of drinks throughout the day.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The home carried out audits, gathered views through surveys and monitored action points from staff meetings.
“An effective quality assurance system was in place. The quality of the service was monitored regularly and people were asked for their views.” from the report
No registered manager
needs fixingThe home did not have a registered manager when inspectors visited. A new manager had been recruited and intended to apply, but the application had not yet been made.
“The service did not have a registered manager in post, but someone had been recruited and there were plans for them to take over this statutory function.” from the report
Communication standards
minorThe home was not actively identifying people's information and communication needs when they had a disability or sensory loss. Staff had not been trained in the Accessible Information Standards.
“The service was not actively identifying the information and communication needs of people with a disability or sensory loss, and no one at the service had been trained in the Accessible Information Standards.” from the report
Activities could improve
minorPeople had access to activities such as quizzes, games and arts and crafts, but the new manager said this was an area they wanted to improve.
“The new manager told us that this was an area that they wanted to improve.” from the report
- 01Has the manager now applied to become the registered manager, and what is the current position?
- 02How do you identify and record each person's communication needs, including needs linked to disability or sensory loss?
- 03What training do staff receive to support people with communication needs or sensory loss?
- 04What new activities have been introduced since the inspection, and how do you find out what each person wants to do?
- 05How are audits and action points used to check that improvements have been completed?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, and the previous overall rating from 13 October 2015 was Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 April 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 Hollymede Cottage
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- September 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
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
35 live-in carers within about an hour of Essex
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. 25 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums life.”
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.