CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Holywell Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention, protective equipment, testing, cleaning, visiting arrangements and the management of COVID-19 risks. The provider also described measures to manage COVID-19-related staffing pressures.
- 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, February 2022
Holywell Home was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good COVID-19 infection control and visiting arrangements.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 21 January 2022. The CQC looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and whether COVID-19 staffing pressures were affecting the home.
Inspectors found comprehensive COVID-19 policies. They saw regular testing, visitor screening, enough protective equipment, good hand hygiene, correct use of protective equipment and regular cleaning of frequently touched areas.
People were supported to keep in contact with relatives. When visits could not happen, online visits were used. The home was also supporting visits in the community when it was safe to do so.
This inspection did not give an overall quality rating. The Safe question was recorded as inspected but not rated, and the other four areas were not assessed in this report.
Infection control planning
The home had detailed arrangements for managing COVID-19 risks, including positive diagnoses and possible outbreaks.
“The home had comprehensive policies and procedures to manage any risks associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.” from the report
Testing and visitor checks
Regular testing was in place for people living in the home, staff and visitors. Visitors were screened before entering.
“A programme of regular COVID-19 testing for both people in the home, staff, and visitors to the home had been implemented.” from the report
Protective equipment and hygiene
There was enough protective equipment and hand sanitiser. Staff had updated training and were observed using protective equipment correctly.
“There was an ample supply of PPE for staff and any visitors to use.” from the report
Contact with relatives
The home supported contact with relatives through in-person visits when possible and online visits when needed.
“When visitors were unable to access the home, for example if they tested positive for COVID-19 technology such as on line visiting was utilised.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection control, testing and visitor arrangements are in place now?
- 02How do you support visits when a relative cannot enter the home?
- 03How are staffing pressures monitored, and what happens if COVID-19 affects staffing levels?
- 04What are the current ratings for Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led, which were not covered by this inspection?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it did not provide a full overall rating or assess the other four key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 February 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, October 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with no major shortfalls identified.
Inspectors visited on 27 August 2019. They spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff, and checked care records, medicines records, staff files and quality records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines support, person-centred care, good links with health professionals and effective quality checks.
People were supported to make choices, stay independent, see family and friends, and take part in activities. The home used positive behaviour support and did not use restraint, seclusion or segregation.
The home is a four-storey building without a lift. It is not suitable for people who cannot manage stairs. Inspectors also noted that some environmental improvements had been identified and planned.
Kind and respectful care
People were treated warmly and respectfully. Staff supported privacy, dignity, choice and independence.
“We saw caring and friendly interactions between staff and people using the service.” from the report
Personalised support
Staff knew people's needs and preferences and used this knowledge to provide individual support. Communication needs were recorded and pictorial information was used when helpful.
“This enabled them to provide personalised care tailored to the needs and wishes of the individual.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Medicines were given as prescribed, with trained staff and audit checks in place.
“The staff gave people their medicines safely and as their doctors had prescribed.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make decisions, maintain relationships and take part in activities of their choice. The home arranged an annual holiday for everyone living there.
“The provider arranged for everyone who lived at Holywell Home to go on a holiday of their choice every year” from the report
Positive behaviour support
The home supported people in the least restrictive way. The inspection found no use of restraint, seclusion or segregation.
“The service used positive behaviour support principles to support people in the least restrictive way.” from the report
No lift
minorThe home is spread over several floors and has no lift. This means it may not be suitable for someone who cannot manage stairs.
“There is no lift access to the upper floors therefore the home is not suitable for people who cannot manage stairs.” from the report
Planned environmental improvements
minorInspectors noted that the provider had identified areas of the environment needing improvement and had a plan for them. Families should ask what work has been completed.
“The provider had identified areas where the environment needed to be improved and had a plan for the required improvements to be made.” from the report
- 01How would you support someone who finds stairs difficult, given that the home has no lift?
- 02Which environmental improvements were identified, and what has been completed since the inspection?
- 03How would you adapt support if the person's communication needs or health needs changed?
- 04How are relatives involved in reviewing care plans and decisions about support?
- 05How would the home support the person if they later needed end-of-life care?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, and all five ratings remained Good from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 October 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 Holywell Home
4 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Good.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- October 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2017Goodup from InadequateSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2016Inadequatestayed InadequateSafe: InadequateResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- July 2016InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 26 April 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
85 live-in carers within about an hour of Lancashire
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 £1,260 a week. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
“Thanks to Tracy, Dad was always immaculately dressed and clean, his meals were all home cooked and nutritionally well balanced and his home was always kept really clean and tidy.”
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.