CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Hill House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, June 2023
Hill House was rated Inadequate and placed in special measures; inspectors found serious risks in safety, care, staffing, dignity and management.
This was an unannounced inspection. Inspectors visited on three days and spoke with people, relatives, staff and external professionals. They observed care and checked care records, medicines, staff files, rotas, training records, audits and other documents.
All five areas were rated Inadequate. Inspectors found people were at risk of harm because safeguarding concerns were not always reported, medicines were not managed safely, risks were not properly assessed, and fire safety, cleanliness and maintenance were poor. Care plans were often inaccurate or contradictory, and staff did not always have the training or supervision needed.
People were not consistently treated with dignity or involved in decisions. Food and drinks were delayed for some people, dietary needs were missed, and activities were limited. Some staff were kind, people liked the food and staff, and relatives said they were kept informed. However, new audits and action plans had only just started and were not yet embedded.
Kind interactions
Some staff treated people kindly and with care during the inspection.
“During our inspection we saw some staff interacting with kindness and in a caring way with people.” from the report
People liked staff
People said they liked the staff, and relatives described staff as helpful and cheerful.
“The [staff] themselves are really lovely. They are all really helpful. They are always happy and jolly with my [family member].” from the report
Family communication
Relatives said they felt involved and were told about changes in their family member's wellbeing.
“Relatives told us they felt involved in their family member's care and staff kept them up to date if anything changed.” from the report
Food was liked
People said they liked the food, although inspectors found serious problems with delays and dietary support.
“People told us they liked the food. One relative said their family member particularly liked the fruit salad snack” from the report
Safeguarding failures
seriousPotential safeguarding incidents were not always reported or acted on. Inspectors made 10 referrals during the inspection, and the local authority identified nine further potential incidents that had not been reported.
“During the course of this inspection, we raised 10 safeguarding referrals to the local authority to keep people safe.” from the report
Medicines and safety risks
seriousMedicine records and stocks were not reliable, some night staff were not trained to give medicines, and people did not always receive medicines as prescribed.
“The provider had failed to manage medicines safely and robustly assess the risks relating to people's health, safety, and welfare.” from the report
Poor building condition
seriousThe building and equipment were damaged and difficult to clean. Inspectors also found fire doors propped open and substances that could harm people within reach.
“We found multiple areas of the service were visibly dirty and damaged, making them difficult to clean.” from the report
Food and drink delays
seriousSome people waited for breakfast and hot drinks for several hours. Staff did not always understand or record dietary needs, and support with eating was inconsistent.
“10 people were up in the lounges at 6.30am. However, they could not have breakfast or a hot drink until staff came on duty at 8am.” from the report
Care plans and staff skills
seriousCare plans were inaccurate or contradictory, and staff lacked effective training in areas including safeguarding, moving people safely, medicines and health conditions.
“The provider had failed to ensure staff received effective training and we found poor practice in areas such as safeguarding, moving and handling, and medicines management.” from the report
Dignity and choice
seriousPeople were not always involved in decisions and some care was delivered without enough explanation or respect for privacy and independence.
“We saw many missed opportunities for people to be involved in decisions about their care.” from the report
- 01What immediate changes have been made to report and respond to safeguarding concerns?
- 02How are medicines now checked, including night-time medicines, patches, creams and 'when required' medicines?
- 03How are people's dietary needs, food preferences and access to breakfast and drinks being recorded and met?
- 04What training and supervision have staff completed in moving and handling, safeguarding, medicines and people's health conditions?
- 05What work has been completed to improve fire safety, cleanliness, maintenance and the environment for people living with dementia?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control, care delivery, records, staffing and management systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 June 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.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good COVID-19 infection control arrangements.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 22 February 2021. It looked at how the home was preventing and controlling COVID-19 infections.
Inspectors found good practice. Essential visits were carefully controlled, with temperature checks, COVID-19 tests, health questionnaires and protective equipment. The home also offered booked screened visits in a designated room.
The home was clean and hygienic. Inspectors found regular cleaning, weekly deep cleaning, enough protective equipment and up-to-date infection control procedures. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Controlled visiting
Visits were restricted and managed to reduce infection risk. Screened visits took place by appointment in a designated room.
“Visits were by appointment only, with times allocated to avoid potential infection transmission with other visitors” from the report
Visitor checks
Visitors had several checks before entering and were given protective equipment.
“All visitors to the service had their temperature checked, undertook a COVID-19 test, completed a health questionnaire” from the report
Clean environment
The home had regular cleaning schedules, including cleaning of frequently touched areas and weekly deep cleaning.
“The service was clean and hygienic. Robust cleaning schedules were in place.” from the report
Protective equipment and procedures
Inspectors saw staff following distancing and protective equipment guidance. The home had supplies and up-to-date infection control procedures.
“PPE was placed throughout the service, with ample supplies available.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visiting arrangements, testing and protective equipment managed now?
- 02How often are frequently touched areas and residents' rooms cleaned, and how is this checked?
- 03What happens if a resident or staff member has an infection or if there is an outbreak?
- 04How are new residents admitted safely and what infection control checks are carried out?
- 05When was the infection prevention and control policy last reviewed?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; the service was inspected but not rated and the other areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 March 2021 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 House
7 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has slipped, from Requires improvement to Inadequate.
- June 2023Inadequatecurrent ratingSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: InadequateResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- May 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2016Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2015Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- April 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 October 2010.
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
17 live-in carers within about an hour of Cambridgeshire
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 £1,200 a week. 14 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
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.