CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Hill Lodge 1
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found effective safeguarding systems, trained staff and detailed risk records. They did not review the whole Safe question.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Outstanding
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, October 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found safeguarding and risk management were working well, while the previous overall rating remained Good.
This was an unannounced targeted inspection on 29 September 2021. Inspectors looked at specific concerns about safeguarding and how risks were monitored and managed. They spoke with people using the home, relatives and staff, and reviewed care and safety records.
Inspectors found effective systems to protect people from abuse. Staff had safeguarding training and knew how to respond to concerns. People's risks were assessed, recorded and reviewed. Staff knew people's needs and how to reduce risks safely.
The home was not given a new rating because this inspection did not cover the whole service. The Safe question was inspected but not rated. The previous overall rating was Good and remained Good after this inspection.
Safeguarding systems
The home had systems to protect people from harm. Staff had been trained and understood how to recognise and respond to safeguarding concerns.
“Effective systems were in place to protect people from the risk of harm and abuse.” from the report
Risk planning
People's risks were assessed and managed. Records gave staff clear guidance, including through positive behaviour support plans that were reviewed regularly.
“People's records were detailed and gave staff guidance about how to care for people appropriately.” from the report
Choice and independence
The report found that the home supported people's choices, control and independence, using the least restrictive approach and people's best interests.
“The model of care and the setting maximised people's choice, control and independence.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How often will my relative's risk assessments and positive behaviour support plan be reviewed?
- 02What safeguarding training have staff completed, and how do you check that they can respond to concerns?
- 03How will you support my relative to raise concerns if they feel unsafe or worried?
- 04What parts of the home will be covered at the next comprehensive inspection?
- 05What information has the CQC received about the home since this targeted inspection?
This was a targeted inspection of specific safeguarding and risk monitoring concerns; it did not assess the whole Safe question or the other four key questions, so the previous ratings carried over. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 October 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.
What inspectors found, February 2020
Rated Good, with Outstanding responsive care; inspectors found kind, safe support, but some building repairs and staff knowledge needed attention.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 8 January 2020. One inspector and one Expert by Experience spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led were all rated Good. Responsive was rated Outstanding, improving from Good at the previous inspection in July 2017.
Inspectors found people were safe, treated kindly and supported to make choices and build independence. They were especially impressed by personalised support, community involvement and the Makaton signing group.
There were some issues to address. Parts of the building looked tired and worn, staff knowledge about deprivation of liberty safeguards needed strengthening, and health action plans were still being completed.
Personalised support
Staff adapted support to people's individual needs, preferences and changing circumstances. Inspectors saw examples of people gaining confidence, returning to community activities and achieving personal goals.
“Staff put people at the centre of their care, ensuring people were given the opportunity to express their preferences and wishes” from the report
Community inclusion
The home supported people to take part in community activities and helped local organisations learn Makaton. This improved communication and reduced isolation for some people.
“By working creatively in this way with the local community staff had enabled people to the remove barriers to them becoming visible and active members of their local community.” from the report
Kind relationships
People and relatives described staff as kind and dedicated. Inspectors saw warm interactions and found that staff knew people well.
“We saw warm and caring interactions between staff and people and there was exchanges of friendly banter.” from the report
Safe care
Risk assessments gave staff detailed guidance, staffing levels were considered sufficient and medicines were checked accurately.
“Care plans contained detailed risk assessments to guide staff to support people in the most effective and safe way in line with their needs and associated risks.” from the report
Open management
Managers were visible and approachable. The home used audits, feedback and staff meetings to monitor and improve care.
“Quality and safety were of a high priority and both internal and external audits took place to assess and manage the effectiveness of the service.” from the report
Building repairs
needs fixingSome parts of the home looked tired and worn. Paint was coming away from walls and some holes remained where handrails had been removed, although the manager had an action plan.
“The home needed some repair and parts of the building appeared tired and worn.” from the report
Legal safeguards knowledge
needs fixingStaff had basic knowledge of the process used when people are deprived of their liberty. The manager arranged further training after the inspection.
“Staff we spoke with had basic knowledge about the DoLS process, but this needed strengthening” from the report
Health action plans
minorHealth action plans were still being prepared for everyone living in the home at the time of the inspection. Ask how this work was completed and kept up to date.
“The registered manager was in the process of compiling health action plans for everybody living at Hill Lodge 1.” from the report
- 01What repairs identified in the building action plan have now been completed, including the damaged paint and holes left by removed handrails?
- 02What further training have staff received about deprivation of liberty safeguards, and how is their understanding checked?
- 03Have health action plans now been completed for everyone, and how are they reviewed after changes in health?
- 04How would you support my relative to communicate their choices and take part in community activities?
- 05How do you involve relatives in care reviews, feedback and decisions about changing needs?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions; the overall rating stayed Good from the previous inspection, while Responsive improved from Good to Outstanding. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 February 2020 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 Lodge 1
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- July 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 9 December 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Staffordshire
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 £980 to £1,230 a week. 85 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“We particularly appreciate the companionship Dawn gives in the evenings when she plays cards and Scrabble with my mother.”
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.