CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Hollies Rest Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. There were enough suitably trained staff, but inspectors recommended more detailed analysis of incidents and person-centred guidance for as-needed medicines.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received appropriate care, food, drink and access to healthcare. Daily records about food and fluid intake were not always accurate, complete or up to date.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind and respectful, and inspectors observed warm interactions. People were supported to express their views and make decisions about their care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- People received support based on their needs, preferences and communication requirements. Care records did not always give enough detail about people's routines and preferences.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a positive and open culture and an established management structure. However, quality audit records were not always easy to follow from one audit to the next.
What inspectors found, November 2023
The Hollies Rest Home is rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care, but some records and review systems needed strengthening.
This was the first inspection of the service under its current registration. One inspector visited on 16 and 17 October 2023. The first day was unannounced and the second was announced. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, managers and staff, observed care, visited the home and checked care, medicine, training and quality records.
All five areas were rated Good: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. People and relatives said they felt safe and well cared for. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe recruitment, good infection control, respectful care and support that reflected people's needs and choices.
Inspectors made recommendations about analysing incidents, written guidance for as-needed medicines, food and fluid records, and adding more detail to care plans. They also identified an outdated safeguarding policy and quality audits that were not always easy to follow. The policy was updated during the inspection, and the home had started putting medicine protocols in place.
Enough trained staff
Inspectors found there were enough suitably trained staff to meet people's needs and that recruitment was carried out safely.
“The provider ensured there were sufficient numbers of suitably trained staff.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about the care. Inspectors observed warm interactions and found that staff knew people's needs well.
“We observed warm and positive interactions between staff and the people they supported.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were supported to maintain relationships, follow interests and join activities. A full-time activities coordinator arranged individual and group activities.
“People also enjoyed entertainment provided by external sources, such as singers and animal 'zoos'.” from the report
Open management
The report describes a positive culture, with relatives and staff able to speak to the management team and contribute ideas.
“There was a positive and open culture at the service.” from the report
Food and fluid records
needs fixingInspectors were satisfied that people received appropriate nutrition and hydration, but daily records did not always accurately show what people had received.
“People's daily care records were not always accurate, complete, and contemporaneous.” from the report
Care plan detail
needs fixingCare was being delivered around people's needs and preferences, but care plans did not always give staff enough detailed guidance.
“Care records did not always best record this.” from the report
As-needed medicine guidance
needs fixingPeople received medicines safely, but written protocols were not always in place to guide staff when medicines were given as needed. The home had started addressing this during the inspection.
“People's medicines records did not always contain written guidance for staff.” from the report
Risk and quality records
minorThe home assessed risks and had quality checks, but inspectors wanted more detailed incident analysis and clearer records showing how audit actions had been completed.
“Audit outcomes were not always easy to follow, from one audit to the next.” from the report
- 01How have you improved the accuracy and completeness of food and fluid records since the inspection?
- 02Are person-centred protocols now in place for all as-needed medicines, and how are staff guided to use them?
- 03How do you make sure care plans include each person's routines, preferences and choices in enough detail?
- 04How do you analyse accidents and incidents, and how do you show that lessons have been acted on?
- 05How do your audits now show clearly which improvements have been completed?
This inspection covered all five CQC questions, the home and care provided, and infection prevention and control. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 November 2023 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, February 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control during the coronavirus outbreak, with a minor issue about disposal bins.
This was a targeted inspection on 19 January 2021. Inspectors checked infection prevention and control because the home had a coronavirus outbreak. The visit was announced shortly beforehand.
Inspectors were assured that visitors, residents and staff were protected through screening, social distancing, shielding, testing and effective use of personal protective equipment. They also found that the home had an up-to-date infection control policy and was managing the outbreak.
The home kept relatives updated by email and worked with external agencies. Inspectors asked the provider to check that disposal bins were operated by pedals.
The service was inspected but not rated. This was not a full inspection of all areas of care, so it does not provide an overall Good or Requires Improvement judgement.
Coronavirus response
The home had responded well to the changing coronavirus threat and worked with statutory bodies to protect and support people.
“The service had responded well to the changing threat of coronavirus.” from the report
Infection control checks
Management support was good, and infection control audits were being carried out to help maintain safe standards.
“Management support was good, and infection control audits were carried out to helped ensure safe standards were maintained.” from the report
Keeping relatives informed
Relatives received regular email updates so they could stay informed about events in the home.
“We noted the regular contact and updates given to relatives via email so that they could keep up to date with events in the home.” from the report
Disposal bins
minorInspectors asked the provider to check that disposal bins were operated by pedals. The report does not say whether this check had been completed.
“We asked the provider to check the disposal bins in the home to ensure they were peddle operated.” from the report
- 01Have all disposal bins been checked and made pedal operated?
- 02How are coronavirus testing arrangements managed for people living in the home and staff?
- 03What infection control audits are carried out, and what happens when they identify an issue?
- 04Have new admissions restarted since the infectious outbreak, and what safety arrangements are used?
- 05How will relatives receive updates about outbreaks or other important events?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during a coronavirus outbreak; it was not a full inspection and the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 February 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 The Hollies Rest Home
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- November 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- May 2019
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 29 May 2019.
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
38 live-in carers within about an hour of Sefton
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 £1,270 a week. 34 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“He developed a close affinity with Terence, spending time talking with him before he retired to bed and looking after his needs during the night.”
“It was clear that she genuinely cared and her warm approach really helped put our minds at ease.”
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.