CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Hill Brow
Rated Outstanding: inspectors found the home performing exceptionally well.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control, safe admissions, PPE, testing, visiting and the management of COVID-19-related staffing pressures.
- Effective?
- Outstanding
- Not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- Not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Outstanding
- Not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Not covered by this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, April 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control and safe visiting arrangements during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The inspection took place on 18 February 2022 and was announced 24 hours in advance. It was a targeted inspection about infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures.
Inspectors were assured that the home was using personal protective equipment safely, managing testing, admitting people safely and keeping its infection prevention and control policy up to date. The home had hand-washing facilities, visitor checks, separate visiting areas and ways for people to keep in touch with relatives remotely.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give an overall quality rating or ratings for most areas of care.
Safe visiting
The home provided separate visiting spaces, checks before entry and alternatives such as video or telephone calls when visits were not possible.
“Family visits had been facilitated through a separate room with its own access from outside using screens.” from the report
Support for hearing difficulties
The separate visiting room had equipment to help people who had difficulty hearing communicate with visitors.
“This room included a microphone and speaker system to support people who have difficulty hearing.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home used PPE safely, followed hygiene guidance and had an up-to-date infection prevention and control policy.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Safe admissions
The home had an admissions policy covering COVID-19 testing and a separate area for isolating new residents.
“The provider had a thorough policy for admissions including COVID-19 testing and a zoned area to isolate people on admission from other residents in the home.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visiting arrangements and infection control managed now?
- 02How does the home currently manage staffing pressures and prevent them affecting residents?
- 03What support is available for residents who have difficulty hearing during visits and everyday communication?
- 04How are new residents tested and supported if they need to isolate after admission?
- 05What are the home's current ratings or most recent findings for effective, caring, responsive and well-led care?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it did not rate the wider quality of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 April 2022 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.
What inspectors found, July 2019
Rated Outstanding overall; inspectors found exceptionally effective and responsive care, with safe, caring and well-led practice rated Good.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 18 March 2019. Two adult social care inspectors and an expert by experience spoke with people, a relative, staff, managers and professionals. They reviewed care plans, staff records, medicines records, staffing records and management information.
People were generally happy with the home and said they felt safe and well cared for. Inspectors found well-trained permanent staff, kind and respectful care, good systems for medicines and risks, and strong links with health professionals.
The home was rated Outstanding for Effective and Responsive care. It was rated Good for Safe, Caring and Well-led. Overall, the rating improved from Good at the previous inspection on 8 March 2017.
Consistent staff
People were cared for by permanent staff they knew and trusted. The report says there was no use of agency staff.
“People were supported and cared for by only permanent members of staff who they knew and trusted with zero use of agency staff due to robust work plans.” from the report
Skilled care
Staff received structured training, competency checks and ongoing support. New clinical tools helped staff notice changes in people's health and frailty.
“This had benefited people, through staff's deeper understanding and increased skills and a reduction in hospital admissions and GP call outs for people.” from the report
Individual support
The home adapted care to people's preferences and supported personal goals, including trips, holidays and contact with relatives.
“Staff worked with people's families to achieve their personal goals.” from the report
Strong response to needs
Inspectors found that staff understood people's needs, including the needs of people living with dementia, and provided a wide range of activities.
“The service was exceptionally responsive when identifying and meeting people's individual needs, as staff underwent graduated training to understand the needs of people living with dementia.” from the report
Shared hoist sling
needs fixingTwo people had been using the same hoist sling, which was not good infection control practice. The home provided a second sling on the day of inspection.
“The provider took immediate action to provide a second sling on the day of inspection to address this issue.” from the report
Late CQC notification
needs fixingThe registered manager did not notify CQC without delay about an approved deprivation of liberty application. A retrospective notification was submitted after the inspection.
“The registered manager had not notified CQC without delay of an application which had been approved by the supervisory authority, to authorise a person's deprivation of liberty.” from the report
Staff vacancies
minorThere were two staffing vacancies. Existing staff covered them while the provider recruited, and inspectors found staffing levels sufficient at the time.
“There were two staffing vacancies; these were covered by the existing staff team.” from the report
- 01How have you maintained the Outstanding Effective and Responsive ratings since the March 2019 inspection?
- 02Have the two staffing vacancies been filled, and how do you make sure there are enough regular staff on every shift?
- 03How do you now make sure each person who needs a hoist has their own sling?
- 04How do you check that all events requiring notification to CQC are reported without delay?
- 05How are people's individual goals, activities and end-of-life wishes recorded and reviewed with them and their families?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five key questions and the overall quality and safety of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 July 2019 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.
Every inspection of Hill Brow
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has improved, from Good to Outstanding.
- April 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- July 2019Outstandingup from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: OutstandingCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- March 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Outstanding
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 January 2011.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
26 live-in carers within about an hour of Hampshire
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.