Hollybush House Nursing Home

Updated 20 January 2021

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 22 December 2020 and was announced.

Updated 20 January 2021

Hollybush House Nursing Home is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided and both were looked at during this inspection. Hollybush House Nursing Home is a care home with nursing, which can accommodate up to 24 older people, some who live with dementia. At the time of our inspection 15 people were using the service.

At our last inspection in February 2016 we rated the service as good. At this inspection we found evidence that led the key question of Effective to be rated as Requires Improvement. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

The inspection visit took place on 12 December 2018 and was unannounced.

There was an acting manager in post who had submitted an application to become the registered manager. 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. The acting manager was not available on the day of inspection.

Training around mental health needs and deprivation of liberty was lacking for all staff, and staff did not have a high level of knowledge in these areas, although this did not affect the general care of people and they were supported by staff in the least restrictive way possible. People were supported to have choice and control of their lives. People were assisted to access appropriate healthcare support and received an adequate diet and hydration.

People continued to receive care that made them feel safe and staff understood how to protect people from abuse and harm. Risks to people were assessed and guidance about how to manage these was available for staff to refer to/follow. Safe recruitment of staff was carried out and adequate numbers of staff were available to support people. People received medicines as required.

The care people received was provided with kindness, compassion and dignity. People were supported to express their views and be involved as much as possible in making decisions. Staff supported people to have choices and independence, wherever possible. People’s diverse needs were recognised and staff enabled people to access activities should they so wish.

The provider had effective systems in place to regularly review people’s care provision, with their involvement. People’s care was personalised and care plans contained information about the person, their needs, choices and cultural needs. Care staff knew people’s needs and respected them. People were able to speak openly with staff and understood how to make a complaint.

The service continued to be well-led, including making detailed checks and monitoring of the quality of the service. People and staff were positive about the leadership skills of the acting manager. We were provided with information about the service where required.