CQC report explained · a residential care home, run by Holmhurst Care Homes

Holmhurst Care Home

28 Gordon Avenue, Portswood, Southampton, SO14 6WD

Goodpublished 16 August 2023, 3 years ago

Rated Good: inspectors found the service performing well and meeting their expectations.

The five questions inspectors ask

Safe?: Good; People told inspectors they felt safe, and there were enough suitable staff. Medicines, infection control and risk assessments were managed safely, although recruitment records and incident follow-up were not always complete.
Effective?: Good; People's needs and choices were assessed, and staff had the skills to support them. Food, drinks and healthcare needs were met, but some training was not refreshed in line with national guidance and supervision records were not always clear.
Caring?: Good; Staff treated people with kindness, patience and respect. People were involved in decisions where they wished and were supported to maintain their privacy, dignity and independence.
Responsive?: Good; Care plans reflected people's needs, routines and preferences. People could take part in activities or go out as they wished, and they knew how to complain.
Well-led?: Good; Inspectors found visible leadership, a friendly atmosphere and regular quality checks. However, the provider acknowledged that incident records did not always show clearly how matters had been followed up.

The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, August 2023

Holmhurst Care Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some records and staff training arrangements needing improvement.

The unannounced inspection took place on 7 June 2023. Two inspectors spoke with seven people, the director and three staff members. They observed care and reviewed care plans, medicines records, recruitment files and management records.

All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough suitable staff, safe medicines practice, good food and healthcare support, kind staff and care that reflected people's choices.

The report also found some shortfalls. Recruitment files did not always contain all legally required information. Some training was not refreshed as often as national guidance suggested, and records did not always clearly show follow-up after incidents or regular staff supervision.

The overall Good rating means the home met the CQC standards checked during this inspection. The rating was unchanged from the previous inspection, published on 3 November 2018. The provider made some improvements during the inspection.

What inspectors praised

People felt safe
Everyone inspectors spoke with said they felt safe and knew who to speak to if they had a problem. There were sufficient staff to support people safely.
“Everyone we spoke with said they felt safe and did not worry about who to speak to if they had a problem.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw caring and positive relationships. Staff respected people's choices, privacy, dignity and independence.
“Staff were caring, compassionate and responded to people with kindness and patience.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's routines, preferences and communication needs. People could choose how to spend their time and when to get up or go to bed.
“People's care plans were personalised to meet their needs.” from the report
Good health and food support
People received suitable food and drinks and were helped to access healthcare. Staff followed advice from other health professionals.
“People's dietary needs were met. They were provided with a nutritious and balanced diet that met their needs and preferences.” from the report
Positive atmosphere
The home had a relaxed, friendly atmosphere. Leaders were visible, and staff appeared supported and engaged.
“This created a welcoming and homely atmosphere for the people supported as well as visitors to the home.” from the report

What inspectors were concerned about

Recruitment records
needs fixing
Some staff recruitment files were missing legally required information, including full work histories. The provider said it would obtain the missing information.
“Recruitment files did not always contain all the information legally required.” from the report
Training frequency
needs fixing
Not all staff training was refreshed as often as national guidance recommended. The provider said it would change the frequency.
“We found not all of the training frequency was in line with national guidance.” from the report
Supervision records
minor
Staff supervision records were clear for the previous year, but it was not always clear how regularly supervision was happening in the current year.
“It was not always clear for the current year how regular staff supervisions were.” from the report
Incident follow-up
needs fixing
Records showed that incidents were investigated, but did not always make the follow-up clear. The provider introduced processes during the inspection to improve this.
“It was not always clear what follow up had taken place.” from the report

Questions to ask them, based on this report

01Have all staff recruitment files now been completed with the legally required information, including full work histories?
02Which staff training is being refreshed more often, and how do you check that staff remain competent?
03How often do staff receive supervision now, and where is this recorded?
04How are accidents and incidents reviewed, followed up and checked for any lessons?
05How do you make sure care plans continue to reflect each person's changing needs and preferences?

This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and infection prevention and control; inspectors observed care, spoke with seven people and reviewed selected care, medicines, recruitment and management records. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 August 2023 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Holmhurst Care Home

3 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.

August 2023Goodcurrent rating
Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Holmhurst Care Home →
March 2022Inspected but not rated
Safe: Inspected but not rated
We are reading this report · the original is on cqc.org.uk
November 2018Goodstayed Good
Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read this report on cqc.org.uk
October 2015Good
Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read this report on cqc.org.uk
September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
Read this report on cqc.org.uk
June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
Read this report on cqc.org.uk
January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
Read this report on cqc.org.uk
April 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 April 2011.

Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission. A service can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections, not every contact the CQC has had with the service.

Another option

Or stay at home with a private carer

Many people who look at care homes end up staying at home with a carer who comes in for a few hours a day, or lives in. PrimeCarers introduces you to self-employed carers you choose yourself: interviewed, ID and DBS checked, from about £20 an hour or £1,120 a week live-in.

About live-in care How PrimeCarers works

Same provider

Other services run by Holmhurst Care Homes Limited

2 other services on the CQC register. A pattern across a group tells you more than one report.

East Hill House Residential Care Home

Liss, GU33

Good

ResidentialDementia

Rated 7 years agocare home