CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Hollies
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found risks were assessed and plans were in place to reduce them. Staffing, recruitment, infection control and medicines arrangements were also found to be safe.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had relevant training and people were supported to eat, drink and access healthcare. Inspectors found staff worked within the Mental Capacity Act and used least restrictive approaches.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated warmly, with dignity and respect. They were involved in decisions, supported to communicate their wishes and able to maintain relationships with family and friends.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and regularly updated. People could choose activities, time alone, outings and how they spent time in the home.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had an open and approachable management style, with audits and an improvement plan. This rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection.
What inspectors found, August 2019
The Hollies was rated Good in all areas; inspectors found kind, personalised care and safe management, with well-led care improved since the last inspection.
Inspectors visited on 10 July 2019. The visit was announced two hours beforehand. They spoke with all three people living at the home and several staff. They observed care and checked care records, medicines records, complaints, audits and other management records.
The home provided accommodation and personal care for up to four people, with three people living there at the time. Inspectors found people were safe, treated with kindness and involved in decisions about their care. Staff supported people's independence, activities, relationships and access to health professionals.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means inspectors found the service met the relevant regulations and that people's outcomes were consistently good. The Well-led rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous comprehensive inspection in December 2016.
Personalised care
People and their relatives were involved in planning support. Care records covered individual needs, preferences, routines and interests.
“People and their relatives were placed at the heart of the service and were involved in choosing their care and support” from the report
Kind and respectful support
Inspectors saw warm and friendly communication. People were supported with privacy, dignity, independence and relationships.
“People received kind, responsive person-centred care from staff who supported them in a homely environment.” from the report
Choice and activities
People chose what to eat, whether to go out and how to spend their time. Activities were based on personal interests and included community visits.
“Activities took place with individuals, based on their personal preferences, each day.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs, appropriate recruitment checks and safe systems for administering and storing medicines.
“People and staff told us they felt there were sufficient staff to safely meet people's needs” from the report
Improved leadership
Management was rated Good after being rated Requires Improvement previously. The home used audits and an improvement plan to monitor care.
“At this inspection we found the service continued to be Good and have rated the service as Good in all areas.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you assess and update my relative's care plan before they move in?
- 02What activities and community opportunities would be available for my relative based on their interests?
- 03How would staff support my relative's communication needs and involve them in decisions?
- 04What staffing levels would be in place for my relative's assessed needs?
- 05How would you support my relative's healthcare, dietary needs and any medicines they take?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the care provided and the home itself. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 August 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.
What inspectors found, January 2017
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but the home was not consistently well-led.
This was an unannounced inspection to check the overall quality of care and whether earlier problems had been fixed. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and other professionals. They also observed care and checked care, medicine and quality records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicine arrangements, improved risk assessments, support with health care, kind staff and care shaped around people's choices and interests.
The Well-led rating was Requires Improvement. The manager had not told CQC about a safeguarding investigation, some policies needed updating, and quality checks and people's daily care records were not always written down or formally reviewed.
The home had made significant improvements since the October 2015 inspection. The earlier breaches about safeguarding, consent and good governance had been met, but further work was needed to make management records and monitoring consistent.
Safe care
Inspectors found that risks were identified and managed, medicines were handled safely and there were enough staff to meet people's needs.
“The risks associated with people's care were assessed, monitored and managed, so that risks to people were minimised.” from the report
Kind relationships
People and relatives said staff were kind and caring. Inspectors saw warm, person-centred relationships and staff responding to individual requests.
“We observed the interaction between people and staff during our inspection visit; it was clear there were caring relationships between them.” from the report
Personalised activities
Care was planned around people's preferences. People were supported with family outings, community groups, hobbies and activities they enjoyed.
“Care was delivered in a person centred way, putting the person at the heart of how care and support was delivered by staff at the home.” from the report
Improvement since 2015
The home had addressed the earlier problems with safeguarding, consent, risk assessments, infection control and care planning.
“We found the provider had made significant improvements at the Hollies when we visited in December 2016, so that the breaches in the regulations had been met.” from the report
Safeguarding notification
needs fixingThe manager investigated a safeguarding concern and shared it with the local authority, but did not notify CQC as required.
“However, we found despite their training and their current level of understanding they had not notified CQC of the safeguarding investigation as required.” from the report
Daily care records
needs fixingRecords of people's daily activities and care were not up to date. The manager said recording would restart from 1 January 2017.
“However, daily care records that described people's daily activities and the care and support they received each day, were not being kept up to date.” from the report
Quality monitoring
needs fixingThe manager carried out some checks but did not record them consistently. Formal feedback surveys and meetings were not being used to show how the service was improving.
“Written quality assurance checks would allow analysis and review of the results to ensure areas for continued improvement were identified.” from the report
Policies needed updating
minorSome policies had not been reviewed for several years. The manager agreed to update them, including the complaints procedure.
“However, other policies and procedures required updating as they had been in place for several years, and had not been reviewed.” from the report
- 01How are daily care and activities now recorded, and how do you check that these records are complete?
- 02What process do you follow to notify CQC and the local authority about safeguarding concerns?
- 03Which policies have been reviewed since the inspection, including the complaints procedure?
- 04How do you record medicine, premises and cleanliness checks and use the results to make improvements?
- 05How can people and relatives give formal feedback, and how is that feedback acted on?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service and all five CQC questions, but the report gives two different visit dates: 15 December 2016 in the summary and 16 December 2016 in the background section. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 January 2017 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 The Hollies
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- August 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Warwickshire
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 £950 to £1,260 a week. 77 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
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.