CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Hollywynd Rest Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practices, suitable risk assessments and effective infection control arrangements.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had the training and support needed for their roles. People's food, drink, healthcare, mobility and consent needs were assessed and supported.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors observed kind and respectful interactions. People were offered choices, involved in decisions and supported to remain as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and included people's preferences, interests, communication needs and religious or cultural requirements. Activities and family contact were supported.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found positive leadership, staff teamwork and quality checks covering areas such as medicines, infection control and health and safety. There was no registered manager at the time, but a manager was in post and applying to register.
What inspectors found, August 2022
Hollywynd Rest Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with no breaches identified.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 14 and 15 July 2022. One inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with six people, seven staff and six relatives or friends. They also observed care and reviewed records, including five care plans.
Inspectors found that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. There were enough staff, medicines were managed safely, infection control arrangements were in place, and risks were assessed. Staff supported people to eat and drink enough and worked with health professionals when needed.
People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Care plans reflected people's needs, choices, interests and communication needs. The home had activities, supported contact with families and recorded people's wishes about end-of-life care. All five areas were rated Good, and the overall rating remained Good from the previous inspection.
Personalised care
Care was tailored to people's needs, preferences, interests and personal histories. Staff said they knew the people they supported well.
“People received personalised care and support specific to their needs and preferences.” from the report
Safe medicines
Staff were trained to give medicines. Records were accurate, medicines were stored securely and staff stayed with people until they had taken them safely.
“People received their medicines safely, when they needed them.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw positive interactions and found that people were treated with dignity, privacy and respect.
“We observed positive interactions, appropriate communication and staff appeared to enjoy delivering care to people.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make decisions about their daily routines and care. Staff encouraged people to remain active and do tasks for themselves where possible.
“People were supported to make their own decisions.” from the report
Activities and relationships
There was a range of activities, including music, arts and crafts, quizzes, exercise and visits from entertainers. People were supported to maintain family and community links.
“There was a varied range of activities on offer which included, music, arts and crafts, quizzes, exercise and visits from external entertainers.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The provider used audits and feedback to monitor the service. Inspectors found good teamwork, communication and staff morale.
“The provider undertook a range of quality assurance audits to ensure a good level of quality was maintained.” from the report
Manager registration pending
minorThere was no registered manager at the time of the inspection. A manager was in post and was applying to register with the CQC.
“At the time of our inspection there was not a registered manager.” from the report
- 01Has the manager now registered with the CQC, and who is legally responsible for the home while this is pending?
- 02How will you assess and review my relative's risks, including falls, mobility and medicines?
- 03How will you support my relative's food, drink and any special dietary needs?
- 04Which activities and religious or cultural support would be available for my relative?
- 05How will my family be involved in reviewing the care plan and raising concerns?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions and infection prevention and control; the overall and key question ratings remained Good from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 August 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, August 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring support and effective management, but some staff were not wearing face masks correctly during the visit.
This was an unannounced, focused inspection on 3 August 2021. Inspectors looked at Safe and Well-led, including infection prevention and control. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and professionals, and reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found people were protected from abuse, risks were assessed, medicines were managed safely and staffing levels met people's needs. The home was clean and had a strong cleaning system.
Some staff were wearing face masks incorrectly during the inspection. The provider corrected this immediately. There was no registered manager at the time, but the provider was recruiting and the deputy manager was acting as interim manager.
The other three key questions were not inspected during this visit. Their previous ratings were carried forward when calculating the overall Good rating. The overall rating had not changed since the previous inspection.
Managing risks
People's risks, including falls, pressure areas and dietary needs, were assessed and reviewed. Staff had clear guidance about how to support people safely while encouraging independence.
“Risks to people's health and wellbeing were managed safely and effectively.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were given as prescribed and in a personalised way. An electronic scanning system and regular audits helped check that medicines and records were correct.
“The provider had an electronic system where medicines had to be scanned before being given to confirm it was the correct box.” from the report
Staffing and recruitment
Inspectors saw enough staff to meet people's needs. Recruitment checks, including references and DBS checks, were completed before staff started work.
“We observed a good level of staffing to meet people's needs effectively.” from the report
Quality checks
The home used audits covering areas such as accidents, falls, medicines and infection control. Inspectors found these checks helped maintain safety and quality.
“A robust audit system was in place, for example, of accident and incidents, falls, medicines and infection prevention and control.” from the report
Face mask use
needs fixingSome staff were not wearing face masks correctly during the inspection. The provider addressed this immediately and gave further assurances after the inspection.
“During the inspection, we saw a number of staff members wearing their facemasks incorrectly.” from the report
No registered manager
minorThere was no manager registered with the CQC when inspectors visited. The provider was recruiting, and the deputy manager was acting as interim manager.
“The service did not have a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission at the time of inspection.” from the report
- 01Has a registered manager now been appointed, and who is responsible for the home while recruitment continues?
- 02How do you check that all staff wear personal protective equipment correctly?
- 03How often are risk assessments, medicines records and infection control audits reviewed?
- 04What changes were made after the recent safeguarding enquiry and improvements to medicines monitoring?
- 05How are residents and relatives involved in decisions about care, activities and food?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, including infection prevention and control; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 August 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.
Every inspection of Hollywynd Rest Home
6 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- August 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2021GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- September 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2015Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of West Sussex
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 £1,170 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
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.