We carried out a review of the data available to us about Hollins Park 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 Hollins Park, you can give feedback on this service.
Hollins Park is a residential care home providing personal and nursing care for 41 people at the time of the inspection in one adapted building. The service can support up to 49 people.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found:
The service went above and beyond to ensure people, relatives and associated professionals were at the heart of assessment, care planning and care delivery. People received exceptionally effective care and support from a highly skilled staff team. Outcomes were outstanding, including where previous placements had left people and their relatives in crisis.
Without exception, external professionals were extremely complimentary about the effective relationships they had with the service and about the high-quality, effective care delivered. 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.
Staff, relatives and people told us unanimously and with genuine passion about the Hollins Park ‘family’ and the strong relationships built between people, staff and relatives.. Without exception we were told, and observed, that people were treated with the utmost dignity and respect. Families felt their relatives were receiving outstanding care.
People had access to an exceptional range of bespoke activities which enabled them to live fulfilled and active lives. There were numerous examples of staff’s endeavour to provide meaningful experiences and lasting happy memories. The provider had invested in an interactive projection system known within the home as ‘the magic table’ which had proved extremely beneficial both in terms of well-being outcomes and engagement during family visits.
The manager was proactive in ensuring they had a visible presence within the home and operated an open-door policy ensuring that any low-level concerns were dealt with promptly preventing escalation.
The service was exceptionally well-led by a management team whose determination and drive was to deliver an outstanding service, leading by example and fully establish the Hollins Park family shone through. The whole home approach was evident and enabled staff to develop skills transferrable to other roles/duties within the service, a clear sense of teamwork and an ‘everyone matters’ outlook. The provider had excellent systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service including high quality communications sharing good practice and achievement across the organisation.
People received a service that was safe, were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Staff received training and were confident about raising concerns if needed. Accidents and incidents were recorded with managerial oversight to identify any emerging patterns to prevent recurrence. People were supported by a sufficient, dedicated and consistent staff team who knew them well. Medicines were managed and administered safely. Measures were in place to prevent and control the spread of infection.
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 9 December 2016).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Hollins Park is registered to provide accommodation for 49 people who require nursing or personal care and who are living with dementia. It is located in a residential area of Macclesfield, close to the local hospital and is approximately one mile from the town centre. Accommodation within the home is laid out in four separate wings, each wing has its own communal and living area. At this inspection they were providing care and support for 49 people.
A registered manager was in post but owing to a pre-arranged career break was not present at this inspection. 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. A relief manager was present during day two of this inspection.
People were safe as staff had been trained and understood how to support people in a way that protected them from danger, harm and abuse. People had individual assessments of risk associated with their care. Staff knew what to do in order to minimise the potential for harm.
People were supported by enough staff to safely meet their needs. People received help with their medicines from staff who were trained to safely support them. The provider followed safe recruitment practices and completed checks on staff before they were allowed to start work.
The provider had systems in place to address any unsafe staff practice including retraining and disciplinary processes if needed.
People received care from staff that had the skills and knowledge to meet their needs. New staff members received an induction to their role and were equipped with the skills they needed to work with people. Staff attended training that was relevant to the people they supported and any additional training needed to meet people’s requirements was provided.
People’s rights were maintained by staff members who were aware of current guidance and legislation directing their work. People were involved in decisions about their care and had information they needed in a way they understood.
Staff received support and guidance from a management team who they found approachable. People and staff felt able to express their views and felt their opinions mattered. People had positive relationships with the staff members who supported them. People’s likes and dislikes were known by staff who assisted them in a way which was personal to them.
People had their privacy and dignity respected by those supporting them. People had access to healthcare when needed and staff responded to any changes in needs promptly and consistently. People were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts to maintain good health.
The provider undertook regular quality checks in order to drive improvements. The provider engaged people and their families and encouraged feedback. People felt confident they were listened to and their views were valued.
During the inspection we spoke with the registered manager, the quality manager, the dementia trainer and five staff members. We also spoke with six of the people who lived in the home.
We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask;
' Is the service safe?
' Is the service effective?
' Is the service caring?
' Is the service responsive?
' Is the service well led?
Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.
If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.
Is the service safe?
At our previous inspection we had serious concerns about safeguarding systems within the home and we took enforcement action and issued a warning notice. We found that our previous concerns had been dealt with and resolved. Incidents had been investigated again and appropriate action had been taken. This ensured that people in the home had been protected from the risk of those issues reoccurring.
Policies and procedures had been developed by the provider to provide guidance for staff on how to safeguard the care and welfare of the people using the service. This included guidance on the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff had been trained in safeguarding vulnerable adults and were able to demonstrate a good understanding of what they would do if they had concerns.
Is the service effective?
We saw that people's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plans. We looked in some detail at the care and support provided to four people who lived in the home. These records included the person's care plans, risk assessments, and records about the support they had received from professional people outside of the home. We found the information in each person's care plan was detailed and reflected the person's needs.
Is the service caring?
During our inspection we spoke with six people who lived in the home. They all spoke highly of the staff who supported them and the care that they received. One person said "Yesterday was lovely. We all sat in the garden chatting. It was sunny and we had ice lollies." Another person said "The staff are kind and helpful. We are lucky here."
We carried out a SOFI observation in a communal area of the home. All interactions we observed with people who lived in the home were positive. The staff we observed were very skilled in their approach and they appeared to know the people that they were supporting well. We saw that staff had warm relationships with people who lived in the home.
Is the service responsive?
We spoke to staff and they showed a clear understanding of consent issues. They showed us the future care plans where they had been supporting people who lived in the home to make sure that their wishes were carried out in specific circumstances.
The day of our inspection was very warm. We saw that the home was well ventilated and people were encouraged and supported to go outside and enjoy the nice weather. We saw people sitting outside chatting to each other and to staff. We also saw that staff were organising additional drinks for everyone and were making sure that people had them.
Is the service well led?
We saw that a number of audits were completed in the home to assess and monitor the quality of the service being provided. We saw that the manager and senior staff completed audits in various areas such as medication administration, infection control and building safety. We also saw that the provider completed governance audits which involved an inspection of all areas within the home. We spoke to the Quality Manager and they told us that they had recently completed this audit at Hollins Park and that the feedback was good and significant improvements to the service had been made.
We spoke to the registered manager, the head of nursing and three members of staff who all said that they enjoyed working at the service and that they felt well supported in their roles. We looked at the support arrangements in place for staff and saw that they had improved. We also looked at the staffing levels and saw that they had been consistent over the six weeks prior to our inspection.
We looked at records and had some concerns that information was not been recorded and reported in accordance with the Health and Social Care Act.
We had been made aware of the outcome of an investigation the day before our inspection and when we looked at the evidence for this outcome we saw that safeguarding requirements had not been followed and that people who lived in the home could be at risk from harm and abuse.
During this visit we spoke to the Registered Manager, the Deputy Manager, the Regional Manager, the Head of Nursing for Care UK (the provider) and three members of the care team. We also looked at records. We found that people who use the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.
We looked at the care practices of staff in the home during our SOFI observations and found that not all staff treated people who lived in the home with dignity and respect. We looked at the care files and saw that they were regularly updated and reviewed.
We looked at the processes and procedures for recruiting new staff and saw that the home met all of the legal requirements.
We looked at the support for staff and found that it was not always available. Staff were not supervised on a regular basis and team meetings were not regularly held and were poorly attended.
We spoke to two relatives of people who live at the home. They told us; "Staff are well trained and are brilliant with the residents." and "The care is good but they need more activities."
The staff we spoke to during our visit told us that they enjoyed working at the home because the standard of care was very good and that they had access to lots of training. They said that they were supported by the manager and the deputy manager who were always available to offer advice and support.
Our observations, documentation we reviewed and the people we spoke to assured us that the people who lived in the home were experiencing care and support to meet their needs.
During our visit we saw a copy of the audit programme for the home which included a copy of a satisfaction survey report, dated March 2010. The information we saw told us that, overall, relatives and friend of people living in the home were satisfied with the level of care and support offered.
The staff we spoke with during our visit told us they had received training that had been provided internally and by professional trainers from outside the organisation. They also told us they receive supervision from senior staff in the home and that senior staff were available if they needed advice or guidance.