Holly Park Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery. The provider was responsive to people’s needs. Improvements were required to ensure records captured more person-centred information. The home was accessible and information was provided in a range of formats.

This service scored 64 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. People’s bedrooms were personalised and they were able to have their own possessions around them if they wished.

However, people and relatives consistently raised concerns about the lack of activities and personalised opportunities available at the service. They told us they had raised concerns about this as there had been a decline in options for people. The registered manager told us how they planned to address this, and we were assured they were committed to implementing improvements.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people's care needs and continuity of care.

The provider supplied accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were appropriate to individual needs. Information was available in different formats, including large print. There were new notice boards in the entrance of the home providing a range of information for people and relatives. One relative said they had received a newsletter, but others said they had not. A meeting with relatives was scheduled to discuss the refurbishment plans for the home.

Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. They told us the registered manager worked in partnership with them.

We received mixed comments from people and relatives about how well they felt listened to. For example, 2 people commented that they would like to know more about the refurbishment plan. Comments included, “It is our home after all.” People and relatives did not always feel involved in reviewing their care plans. The registered manager was aware of this and had plans in place to carry out reviews involving people and their families.

The provider had recently sent out surveys to staff, people and relatives. There was evidence they had responded to some of the issues raised but there was no analysis of overarching themes and trends.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Recent changes to the gardens and updated walk in showers had enhanced people’s opportunities, who had mobility issues. One person told us they were so pleased with the new shower they would have showers morning and night.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. Processes were in place to support equity in people's experiences and outcomes. This included people who were cared for in bed or preferred to stay in their own rooms.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. ReSPECT forms were in place and clearly highlighted on the electronic care planning system. ReSPECT forms highlighted people’s personalised recommendations for clinical care in emergency situations. However, most people had not had the opportunity to discuss their wishes for their end of life arrangements. The registered manager recognised this was an area that needed to be addressed.