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.
What inspectors found, January 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong COVID-19 infection control and visiting arrangements, but this was not a full inspection.
Inspectors visited on 5 January 2022 with one day's notice. This was a targeted inspection during the COVID-19 pandemic. They looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and staffing pressures.
The home screened visitors for symptoms and required negative lateral flow test results before entry. It provided personal protective equipment, carried out regular testing and had cleaning schedules for frequently touched areas.
Inspectors said they were assured about the home's infection control arrangements, including safe admissions, visits, use of protective equipment and vaccination checks. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Protective equipment and testing
Staff had access to protective equipment across the home and took part in regular testing.
“Staff had an access to multiple PPE stations located in all dwellings.” from the report
Cleaning arrangements
Staff had daily cleaning schedules covering frequently touched points such as switches and door handles.
“Cleaning schedules included cleaning of frequently touched points such as light switches or door handles.” from the report
Vaccination checks
The home checked the vaccination status of staff and visiting professionals in line with the requirements described in the report.
“The service was meeting the requirement to ensure non-exempt staff and visiting professionals were vaccinated against COVID-19.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you currently screen visitors for symptoms and check their testing requirements before they enter?
- 02How do you currently manage visits in line with the latest guidance?
- 03How do staff access protective equipment in each bungalow and apartment?
- 04How often are frequently touched areas cleaned, and who checks the cleaning schedules?
- 05What staffing pressures are you experiencing now, and how are they affecting care?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated and the other key areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 January 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, August 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, person-centred care but safety, repairs, medicines and management oversight were not consistently reliable.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 27 and 28 June 2019. Inspectors spoke with people using the service, relatives, staff, managers and a visiting professional. They also reviewed records, checks, medicines, training and the building.
The home had enough staff and used safe recruitment checks. People were treated with kindness and supported to make choices, build independence, use local services and take part in activities. Inspectors also found good support with food, health appointments and communication.
However, some repairs had not been completed. Fire safety work was needed, one person's prescribed mouth wash and toothpaste were missed on four days, and cleanliness was inconsistent. Some restrictions and best-interest decisions were not recorded clearly enough.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe, Effective and Well-led were also Requires Improvement. Caring and Responsive were Good. The home had improved since the previous inspection and was no longer in breach of the earlier regulations, but it breached Regulation 15 at this inspection.
Kind and respectful care
People appeared relaxed and happy with staff. Staff understood people's individual routines, preferences and communication needs.
“People received care and support that was based on their individual needs, routines and preferences.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make choices, pursue goals and become more independent. One person had moved on to supported living.
“People were supported effectively to develop their independence.” from the report
Community life
People took part in activities and social opportunities in the community, including fishing, shopping, holidays and visits to local places.
“People were supported with activities, interests and hobbies and were active citizens of their local community.” from the report
Staff development
Staff received induction, training and support. Inspectors found that morale and motivation had improved since the previous inspection.
“People were supported effectively by staff who had received a structured induction on the commencement of their work and ongoing training and support.” from the report
Outstanding repairs and fire safety
seriousRepairs were not completed promptly. Problems included exposed wiring, damage affecting fire safety, restricted emergency access and worn furnishings.
“The provider had failed to ensure the premises were maintained properly.” from the report
Missed prescribed items
seriousOne person did not receive prescribed mouth wash and toothpaste on four evenings. A trained staff member was available but had not been asked to help.
“We identified one person had not received their evening prescribed mouth wash and toothpaste on four days during June 2019.” from the report
Inconsistent cleanliness
needs fixingNew cleaning schedules and deep cleaning had been introduced, but inspectors still found that cleanliness was not consistent in all areas.
“From our observations, we found some inconsistencies in the level of cleanliness and discussed this with the management team.” from the report
Restrictions and records
needs fixingTwo kitchen doors had been locked, although one should have been unlocked. Records of some best-interest decisions did not consistently show who had been involved.
“MCA and best interest decisions had been completed where people could not consent to specific decisions such as medicines, finances and personal care.” from the report
- 01What repairs have been completed since the inspection, especially the exposed wiring, fire safety defects, damaged furnishings and emergency exit door?
- 02What action was taken in response to the Notice of Fire Safety Deficiencies and Remedies?
- 03How do you now check that every prescribed medicine and treatment, including mouth wash and toothpaste, has been given and recorded?
- 04How do you ensure doors are only locked when this is legally authorised and necessary for a specific person?
- 05How are cleanliness checks and reported repairs reviewed by senior managers, and what are the timescales for outstanding work?
This was an unannounced planned inspection of the care home covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and care provided; the report compares the findings with the previous inspection published on 6 April 2018. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 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.
Every inspection of The Hollies
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- January 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- August 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2014Inspected but not rated
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 31 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.