CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Hollies Residential Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, February 2022
The Hollies Residential Home was inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection controls but found some cleanliness problems.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 6 January 2022. It focused on infection prevention and control during COVID-19, and also asked about staffing pressures.
Inspectors were assured that the home was managing visitors, admissions, personal protective equipment, testing, social distancing and infection outbreaks in line with guidance. Staff had infection control training, and the provider audited infection control practices.
Inspectors were only somewhat assured about the cleanliness and condition of some areas. They found dusty window sills and wardrobes, some uncovered light pull-cords and lightly damaged building fabric that could not be cleaned effectively.
The home was inspected but not rated. This was not a full inspection of all five areas of care, so the report does not give an overall quality rating.
Infection control guidance
Staff were following current government guidance on infection prevention and control. The provider was also working with the local infection control team.
“Staff were following the current government guidance in relation to infection prevention and control.” from the report
Testing and PPE
The home had arrangements for COVID-19 testing and trained staff in the correct use of personal protective equipment.
“All staff received training on the correct use of PPE and infection control.” from the report
Visitor arrangements
Visitors were screened, given information about infection control procedures and required to follow PPE and social distancing guidance.
“All visitors were screened for symptoms of respiratory or other infections before being allowed to enter the home.” from the report
Cleanliness of some areas
needs fixingSome window sills and wardrobes were dusty. Some light pull-cords and damaged building fabric also made effective cleaning more difficult.
“Some areas of the home we saw were not clean. For example, window sills and wardrobes in some rooms were dusty” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to the cleaning schedules and protocols since the inspection?
- 02Have the dusty window sills and wardrobes identified by inspectors been cleaned, and how is this now checked?
- 03What action has been taken on the uncovered light pull-cords and damaged building fabric?
- 04How are visitors currently screened and supported to follow PPE and infection control procedures?
- 05How are staffing pressures monitored, and did they affect people's care during the COVID-19 period?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, with questions about staffing pressures; it was not a full inspection and the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 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, January 2020
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, but night staffing and management checks were not strong enough to keep people consistently safe.
This was an unannounced inspection on 11 December 2019. Inspectors spoke with people, a relative and staff, and reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files and safety records.
The home was rated Good for Caring and Responsive. People were treated with kindness and dignity, their independence was encouraged, and activities and care were generally tailored to their needs. People said they felt safe and liked the staff.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Safe, Effective and Well-led. There were not always enough suitably trained staff at night. Risk records, staff induction and training records were incomplete, and quality checks did not reliably identify or deal with these problems.
The overall rating stayed at Requires Improvement, as it had at the previous inspection in August 2018. The report says enough improvement had not been made and the home had been rated Requires Improvement at its last two consecutive inspections.
Kind and respectful care
People described staff as caring and kind. Inspectors saw staff respond warmly to people's needs and support them with dignity.
“People felt staff listened to them and provided care with kindness and compassion.” from the report
Personalised support
Care records included people's likes, dislikes, backgrounds and interests. Staff knew people's care needs and supported them in their preferred way.
“People's care records included information that was important to them such as their likes and dislikes, and included information about the background, families and interests.” from the report
Activities and social contact
People had activities to help prevent isolation, including individual time for people who did not join group activities. Religious and cultural wishes were supported.
“People were provided with a variety of activities that were designed to reduce the risk of social isolation and to help people to build friendships with others.” from the report
Improved medicines systems
The report says medicines were now administered safely and records and arrangements for medicines given when needed had improved.
“At this inspection we found improvements had been made in most areas of medicines management and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation.” from the report
Food and healthcare support
People had food choices and support matched to their dietary needs. Staff worked with healthcare professionals, who praised the care provided.
“People received the support they needed to maintain a healthy and balanced diet and good nutritional health.” from the report
Night staffing
seriousOnly two staff worked at night while some people needed two staff for moving and transferring. Inspectors said this could delay help or an emergency evacuation.
“People were not always supported and cared for by enough qualified and suitable staff to keep them safe at night.” from the report
Weak management checks
seriousProvider-led audits did not identify several risks found by inspectors. This meant the provider could not reliably show that problems were being found and corrected.
“The provider did not have effective auditing processes in place to assist them and the registered manager in identifying the areas of improvement we have referred to throughout this report.” from the report
Incomplete risk records
needs fixingSome known health and mobility risks did not have detailed assessments or care plans explaining how staff should reduce the risks.
“There was an inconsistent approach to the way risks to people's health and safety were assessed and recorded within people's care plans.” from the report
Staff training and development
needs fixingSome staff had not completed all required training, induction records were not available and annual appraisals were not provided.
“Most staff had completed the training the provider deemed mandatory for their role. However, there were gaps for some staff, with some of these having worked at the home for more than a year.” from the report
Mental capacity safeguards
needs fixingCapacity assessments were not always specific to individual decisions, and inspectors thought more people might need formal safeguards for restrictions on their liberty.
“We felt more people may need DoLS in place to ensure their liberty was not unlawfully restricted.” from the report
Environment and end-of-life planning
minorOne communal room smelled of urine, some ground-floor areas were cluttered and parts of the building needed maintenance. End-of-life wishes were not recorded in enough detail.
“End of life care had been discussed with some people although records to support this were limited.” from the report
- 01How many staff will be on duty overnight, and how will two-person transfers and emergencies be managed?
- 02What has changed in the provider's audits since the inspection, and how are risks now checked and followed up?
- 03Have all staff completed the required training, induction and appraisals?
- 04Have people's mental capacity assessments and any Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications been reviewed?
- 05How are care plans now recording health risks, mobility risks and people's end-of-life wishes?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five key questions, including the care provided and the premises. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 January 2020 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 Residential Home
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at The Hollies Residential Home →
- January 2020Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at The Hollies Residential Home →
- August 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 26 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
75 live-in carers within about an hour of Nottinghamshire
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. 63 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
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.