We carried out a review of the data available to us about Holly Lodge Residential Home Limited on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Holly Lodge Residential Home Limited, you can give feedback on this service.
Holly Lodge Residential Home provides accommodation and personal care for up to 12 older people. At the time of the inspection there were 10 people using the service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
¿ People were supported to keep in touch with friends and family by utilising technology such as, video chats. One person took great pleasure in having a video tour of their son's house.
¿ People received ‘pen friend’ letters from children. People enjoyed replying and this had helped to ease any feelings of social isolation during the pandemic.
¿ The provider had carried out regular mental health screening for people to ensure any deterioration in their mental health was identified and acted on.
¿ Picture cards were used if people had difficulty hearing staff through masks. This included diagrams to explain the Covid-19 testing procedure.
¿ The provider had adapted shift patterns to assist staff to look after their children and alternative arrangements were made to ensure staff were protected from the risks of using public transport to travel to work.
¿ Discussions were held with staff to reduce their anxieties and the provider understood where to signpost staff if their mental wellbeing had deteriorated.
Holly Lodge Residential Home is a residential care home providing personal care to 11 people aged 65 and over at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to 12 people.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
Medicines were administered safely. How medicines were stored was reviewed and changed to follow good practice guidance during the inspection. All other risks people faced were assessed and safely managed. People and relatives felt the care and support kept people safe. Staff showed good knowledge of safeguarding procedures. Infection prevention was ongoing, and the home was clean and well maintained.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. The provider had strong links with health professionals. This promoted timely support and positive outcomes for people. People had access to food and drinks, 24 hours a day if requested. Staff told us the training ensured they had the skills to carry out their roles effectively and the management team were supportive.
Staff were knowledgeable about people’s backgrounds and preferences. They were caring, patient and took time to ensure people felt valued. They worked in partnership with people, offered choices and promoted people’s independence. Due to the stability of the staff team there was a rapport between people, visitors and staff.
People took part in valued activities within the home. The provider would deliver end of life care to ensure people stayed in a familiar environment with people they knew. People’s communication needs were identified, and appropriate support offered. There was a complaints procedure which was made available to people and their families.
The management team had good oversight of relevant procedures through monitoring and auditing to ensure people received effective support and the service was well-led. The provider used a variety of methods to assess and monitor the quality of the service. They were aware of their regulatory responsibilities associated with their role.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published 20 January 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
Holly Lodge Residential Home provides accommodation and personal care for up to 12 older people. At the time of the inspection there were eight people using the service.
There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People were being safeguarded from abuse as staff and the management followed the local safeguarding procedures if they suspected someone had suffered potential abuse.
Risks of harm to people were assessed and action was taken to minimise the risks. People had plans in place and the equipment they needed to keep them safe.
There were sufficient suitably trained staff to keep people safe and meet their needs in a timely manner. Staff had been recruited using safe recruitment procedures to ensure that were of good character and fit to work with people who used the service.
People's medicines were stored and administered safely by trained staff.
The principles of The Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 were being followed as the provider was ensuring that people were consenting to or when they lacked mental capacity, were being supported to consent to their care.
Staff told us and we saw they had received training and were supported to be effective in their roles.
People were supported to maintain a healthy diet. People were referred to other health care agencies for support and advice if they became unwell or their needs changed.
People were treated with dignity and respect and their right to privacy was upheld. The care people received was personalised and responsive to people's individual needs and preferences.
The provider had a complaints procedure and people told us they felt they could approach the management with concerns and it would be dealt with.
There were effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of service. The registered manager and deputy manager were liked and respected by people, their relatives and staff.
We inspected this service on 8 April 2015. The inspection was unannounced. At our previous inspection in October 2013, the service was meeting the regulations that we checked.
The service provided accommodation and personal care for up to 12 older people who may have dementia. Eight people lived at the home on the day of our inspection.
There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. On the day of our inspection, the registered manager was not at the home and the deputy manager was managing the service in their absence. We refer to the deputy manager as the manager in the body of our report.
The provider did not always have effective systems in place to monitor the safety of the service. We observed that people received their medicines as prescribed but identified concerns with the way medicines were recorded. We found that accidents and incidents were recorded by staff but the information was not analysed to identify trends, which could affect how people’s care is delivered.
People told us they felt safe and well cared for. Staff understood their responsibilities to protect people from harm. People’s individual risks were assessed and guidance was in place to minimise any identified risks.
Staff received training and support to enable them to meet people’s needs and preferences effectively and had opportunities to reflect on their practice and learn from other staff. Staff were recruited safely and there were sufficient staff to meet people’s individual needs.
Staff knew people well and understood their individual needs and abilities. People and their relatives were involved in decisions on how they received their care and support. People were supported to take part in interests and hobbies that met their preference.
The manager and staff understood their responsibility to comply with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). No one was under a DoLS at the time of our inspection. Where people were assessed as not having capacity to make decisions, records showed that their families and other health professionals were involved in making decisions in their best interests.
People were supported to maintain good health and were supported to access doctors, opticians and other health professionals when they needed to.
People and their relatives spoke highly of the staff and praised their caring attitude. Staff enjoyed working at the home and made sure it offered a homely environment for people. We saw that staff promoted people’s independence and respected their privacy and dignity.
People were able to choose how they spent their day and what they would like to eat. People’s individual dietary needs were assessed and monitored where required to ensure they maintained a balanced diet.
Information on how to make a complaint was displayed at the home and people and their relatives were encouraged to make complaints or raise concerns. The provider sought feedback on the quality of the service and took action to make improvements where necessary.
People told us they always felt welcome visiting the home and found it to be well managed.
Staff had a good understanding of people's needs, likes and dislikes. Care plans were individual and based on people's need. People told us they felt safe and well cared for.
There was a stable established workforce. The provider had systems in place to ensure that staff recruited were suitable to work with vulnerable people.
Eight people were in residence when we undertook our inspection. We spoke with everyone living at the home, the staff and the registered provider. There were no visitors during our inspection, but we looked at cards and comments recorded in the visitor's book to gain their views.
We saw staff knocking on people's doors and waiting for an answer before entering, meaning people's privacy and dignity were respected. People told us they could spend time in any area of the home or alone in their bedroom when they wanted to. People using the service were happy living at the home. They told us they enjoyed their lives there and they liked the staff who cared for them. One person said, 'I think it's excellent. It's very comfortable, I am never rushed and the staff are respectful.'
The home was warm, clean and homely. People told us they were happy with all aspects of the environment.
Staff received training and support to ensure they could meet the needs of the people they supported.
The provider ensured they monitored the quality of the service which meant people were encouraged to air their views and they lived in a well maintained environment.