Holly House

We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed autistic people and people with a learning disability respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted.

Incident and accident records confirmed the action taken as a result of any event. These were very detailed and included lessons learned. Information about events was shared with the staff team. Good records in relation to safeguarding and allegations of abuse were completed. Risks had been assessed and environmental checks had been undertaken. The environment had been adapted to an exceptional standard and personalised to meet the needs of people. Servicing, audits and checks were completed, and infection prevention and control measures were considered. Medicines were managed safely, the provider told us about the process for 2 staff checking stock numbers of a medicine and that they were confident staff knew and had access to up to date information about people’s medicines.

Detailed assessments had been completed; professionals were involved and people were encouraged to live healthier lives. Some fedback about how the service had managed a very complex situation but it also recognised that decisions were required to ensure this person’s individual need was met. Consent, MCA (Mental Capacity Act) and DoLS (Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards) was reflected in care files to support decision making and reduce risk of unlawful restrictions. Meals were provided according to people’s likes and choices, kitchen checks were ongoing. Oral care was provided and staff had access to information and guidance to support people.

People received good care, were treated with respect and choice and independence was supported. Some fedback about the positivity of the staff but a person’s representative talked about the need for more positive engagement with people. Activities were ongoing and we saw people going out into the community. Staff told us they supported people daily to access the community as they wished, and the provider discussed how they supported meaningful community activities and engaged people in their individual tasks.

People were supported to attend appointments and detailed assessments, and care planning supported an individualised person centred approach, no one was in receipt of end of life care, but staff had undertaken end of life training, and 1 staff member was training to be the champion in end of life. Information and prompts were on display in people’s room to guide and support people with daily tasks and goals. No complaints had been received but policy and guidance was available to support the process if required.

People and team meetings were taking place and people, and staff views were sought in surveys and feedback. Some staff were confident in the management and the registered manager, but others said they would be more confident in approaching the deputy manager. Audits and monitoring was taking place and actions recorded as required. The management and senior team were open and transparent, and information required to support the assessment was provided promptly.