Holly House Care Home

Updated 12 December 2020

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

As part of CQC’s response to care homes with outbreaks of coronavirus, we are conducting reviews to ensure that the Infection Prevention and Control practice was safe and the service was compliant with IPC measures. This was a targeted inspection looking at the IPC practices the provider has in place.

This inspection took place on 01 December 2020 and was announced.

Updated 12 December 2020

Holly House Care Home is a residential care home for a maximum of 38 older people, some of whom may be living with dementia. The service is situated in the village of Burringham, which is close to Scunthorpe and its facilities. It consists of three separate interlinked buildings, in which communal facilities are provided in dining rooms and various lounges. There is a passenger lift to assist people with accessing the upper floor of one building, but this is currently out of commission and so this building is not used. The two buildings in use consist of only ground floor accommodation. A secure, enclosed garden area is available and there is ample car parking space.

At the last inspection in 2015 the service was rated Good.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

The inspection of Holly House Care Home took place on 9 October 2017 and was unannounced. At the time of our visit there were 23 people using the service. The provider was required to have a registered manager in post. On the day of the inspection there was a manager that had been registered for three years.

People were protected from the risk of harm by systems to manage safeguarding concerns and staff were trained in safeguarding adults from abuse. Staff understood their responsibilities in managing safeguarding concerns. Risks were managed so that people avoided any harm. The premises were safely maintained with documentary evidence to support this. Staffing numbers were sufficient to meet people’s need and we saw that rosters cross referenced with the staff that were on duty. Recruitment systems ensured people’s safety as staff were checked for their suitability. The management of medicines was safe.

Staff employed were qualified, competent and regularly supervised. Their personal performance was checked at an annual appraisal. People’s mental capacity was appropriately assessed and their rights were protected. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People received adequate nutrition and hydration to maintain their health and wellbeing.

The premises were not always suitably decorated or illuminated. Some areas needed redecoration as parts of the décor were worn and tired looking. We made a recommendation regarding the re-decoration of some bedrooms and the brightness in some areas. Other areas were suitably decorated, brighter and more airy.

People were cared for by compassionate staff that knew about their needs and preferences. Staff sought people's consent before providing support and involved them in their care wherever possible. People’s wellbeing, privacy, dignity and independence were respected. This ensured people felt satisfied and were enabled to take control of their lives.

People were supported in accordance with person-centred care plans, which reflected their needs and were regularly reviewed. Activities, pastimes and means of occupation were provided so that people were entertained and enabled to socialise. People had very good family connections and support networks. People and their friends and relatives were encouraged to maintain relationships of their choosing. An effective complaint system was used and complaints were investigated without bias.

The service was well-led and people had the benefit of a friendly culture and management style that was supportive. An effective system was in place for checking the quality of the service using meetings, audits and satisfaction surveys. People and their relatives made their views known through direct discussion with the registered manager or via the complaint and quality monitoring systems. People’s privacy and confidentiality were maintained as records were held securely in the premises.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.