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
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Recruitment, medicines, infection control and accident monitoring were managed appropriately, although some risk and care documents were not fully completed.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff received training, supervision and support. People had their nutrition, healthcare and communication needs assessed, and staff worked with other professionals.
- Caring?
- Good
- People said staff were respectful, friendly and listened to them. People were involved in care decisions and encouraged to maintain their privacy, dignity and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans recorded people's needs, preferences and routines. The home offered activities, supported relationships and had an accessible complaints process.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had regular audits, meetings and reviews. The manager and staff worked with professionals and used identified actions to improve the service.
What inspectors found, September 2019
The Hollies is rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some records incomplete and refurbishment needed.
This was an unannounced, planned inspection on 23 July 2019. Inspectors spoke with eight people using the service, four relatives, staff and visiting professionals. They reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home supported 23 people with mental ill health. Inspectors found that people were safe, treated with kindness and involved in decisions about their care. Staff knew people well, supported their independence and helped them access health services.
The overall rating was Good, and all five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was unchanged from the previous inspection, published in March 2017.
Staff knew people well
Inspectors found that staff understood people's likes, dislikes, interests and support needs. This helped the care feel personal.
“People had developed positive and friendly relationships with the staff and staff could tell us about people's likes, dislikes, interests and the support they needed.” from the report
Safe medicines support
Medicines were stored securely and given only by trained staff. The home had procedures and guidance for safe administration.
“Medications were stored securely, and medication was only administered by staff who had the correct training to do so.” from the report
Respect and independence
People were involved in decisions and encouraged to do as much as possible for themselves. Inspectors found that privacy and dignity were respected.
“People were encouraged to retain their independence by staff and others were supported to do as much as they could.” from the report
Personalised activities
The home supported people's interests and offered outings and activities. Staff also helped people pursue individual hobbies.
“An example of this was how one person enjoyed photography so the registered manager and staff sourced their own camera and supported the person to enjoy their hobby.” from the report
Good oversight
The provider and manager used audits, feedback and reviews to monitor the service and address actions that were identified.
“The registered manager and provider completed regular safety and quality audits to measure performance and generate improvements.” from the report
Some records were incomplete
needs fixingSome documents were not dated and parts of a care file had not been completed. The manager said this would be addressed immediately.
“We identified that some documentation had not been fully completed.” from the report
Refurbishment was needed
minorInspectors found areas of the home needed refurbishment. The manager had already identified this and was waiting for the work to start.
“Areas of the home were in need of home refurbishment, however the registered manager had already identified this and waiting for this to start.” from the report
- 01Which care records were incomplete at the inspection, and how do you now check that all records are dated and fully completed?
- 02What refurbishment was planned, and has all of this work now been finished?
- 03How do you make sure medicines continue to be given only by staff with the required training?
- 04How are people involved in reviewing their care plans and setting goals for greater independence?
- 05How have you evaluated and developed the activities available to people since the inspection?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering the premises and care across all five key questions; all ratings remained Good from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 September 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, March 2017
The Hollies was rated Good in all five areas; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care with enough staff.
This was an unannounced inspection on 14 December 2016. One inspector spoke with four people, five care staff, managers and a visiting health professional. They observed care, looked around the home and checked care, staffing, training, recruitment and medicines records.
Inspectors found that people were safe and supported by enough staff. Medicines were administered and recorded correctly. Staff had suitable training, followed the Mental Capacity Act and supported people's physical and mental health.
People were treated with kindness and their dignity and independence were respected. They helped plan their care, meals and activities. The home also supported hobbies, family visits, holidays and preparation for greater independence.
The overall rating was Good. Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Good. The report found effective checks on the quality of care and no outstanding complaints at the time of the visit.
Safe medicines support
Inspectors checked two people's medicines records and found them correctly completed. Medicines were given as prescribed and there were arrangements for reviews and returns to the pharmacy.
“People's medicines were administered safely and as prescribed by their GP.” from the report
Enough trained staff
The home had enough staff to provide planned care and keep people safe. Recruitment checks were completed before staff started work.
“There were enough staff available to deliver people's planned care or to keep people safe.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff sought permission, showed compassion and supported people's dignity and independence. People were encouraged to make choices about their daily lives.
“Staff were kind and caring and had developed good relationships with people.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's needs, communication, social needs and wishes. People or their representatives helped create and update the plans.
“People had personalised care. They or their representative were involved in planning their own care.” from the report
Good quality checks
The registered manager and provider checked different parts of the service, including risk assessments and people's quality of life.
“The provider had an effective quality assurance process in place.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you currently check that medicines are given safely, including medicines prescribed to be taken when needed?
- 02How do you decide how many staff are needed for each person's care and for outings?
- 03How are care plans reviewed with the person or their representative, and how are their current wishes recorded?
- 04What activities, education and opportunities for greater independence are available for my relative now?
- 05How do you support people to attend GP, hospital, dental and other healthcare appointments?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service, covering all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 March 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
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- September 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 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
62 live-in carers within about an hour of Derbyshire
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 £1,010 to £1,260 a week. 51 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
“We particularly appreciate the companionship Dawn gives in the evenings when she plays cards and Scrabble with my mother.”
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.