CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Holmside
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, suitable recruitment checks and clear systems for reporting abuse and managing risks.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and choices were assessed, and staff supported eating, drinking and access to healthcare. Staff had not yet received Mental Capacity Act training, but this was booked.
- Caring?
- Good
- People, relatives and professionals described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors observed respectful support and found that people were encouraged to make choices and remain independent.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and reviewed regularly. People were supported with activities, work, day services, clubs, community access and communication needs.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found visible leadership, positive feedback about management and quality checks that led to improvements. The home worked with health and social care professionals.
What inspectors found, March 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with MCA training still to be completed.
The announced inspection visit took place on 16 February 2019. One inspector spoke with seven people, two relatives, staff and health and social care professionals. They reviewed care files, medicines records, staff files, complaints, training and audits, and observed care and mealtimes.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practices, suitable recruitment checks and good systems for managing risks and learning from incidents.
People were treated with kindness and respect. Their care plans reflected their choices, communication needs and life histories. The home supported people with food, healthcare, activities and access to the community, and had an effective complaints process.
The report identified one minor issue. Staff had not yet received Mental Capacity Act training, although this had been booked. The report did not record any breaches of regulations or enforcement action.
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored, administered and recorded safely. Staff giving medicines were trained and had their competence checked.
“Medicines were administered and managed safely by trained and competent staff.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People, relatives and professionals described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors saw respectful interactions and support for people's dignity.
“People were treated with dignity and respect. We observed many respectful interactions during the inspection.” from the report
Activities and community life
People were supported to attend work, day services and clubs, and to take part in activities inside and outside the home.
“People were supported to access the community and take part in activities within the home.” from the report
Management and improvement
The home had an open culture, supportive leadership and audits that were used to identify and make improvements.
“Quality assurance systems were in place which ensured the management had a good oversight of the service.” from the report
Mental Capacity Act training
minorStaff had not yet received Mental Capacity Act training at the time of inspection. The report says the training had been booked.
“Staff had not yet received MCA training but this was booked in.” from the report
- 01Have all staff now completed Mental Capacity Act training, and how is their understanding checked?
- 02How are staffing levels maintained when extra staff are needed or someone is absent?
- 03How is the outside patio and garden development progressing, and can residents use these areas now?
- 04How are people's risk assessments reviewed when they choose to take positive risks?
- 05How are people's communication methods and changing needs shared with all staff?
This was an announced inspection of the overall service and all five CQC questions, including care, premises, records, staffing and management systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 March 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.
Every inspection of Holmside
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- March 2019Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 26 February 2018.
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.