CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Hill View Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Risks were assessed, staffing levels met people's needs, medicines were managed safely and staff recruitment checks had been completed.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had suitable training, supervision and experience. People were supported with food, healthcare, their individual needs and maximum choice, using the least restrictive approach.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, compassion, dignity and respect. People were involved in decisions and encouraged to be as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs, preferences and routines. People were supported with communication, activities, relationships, holidays and access to the community.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The service was consistently managed and well-led. Regular audits, staff communication and feedback systems were in place, and the previous recommendation about quality assurance had been acted on.
What inspectors found, September 2019
Hill View Care Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements in management since the last inspection.
This was a planned inspection on 7 and 16 August 2019. The inspector spoke with all three people using the service, four staff members and two relatives. They also checked care plans, medicine records, staff recruitment files and management records.
The home provided care for one person with autism and supported two people with learning disabilities and autism in supported living. Inspectors found people were safe, treated with kindness and supported by staff who knew them well. Care was planned around people's choices, communication needs, interests and independence.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The home used positive behaviour support and did not use restraint, seclusion or segregation. The Well-led rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection to Good, while the overall rating remained Good.
Least restrictive support
The home used positive behaviour support to help people in the least restrictive way. Inspectors found no use of restraint, seclusion or segregation.
“The service used positive behaviour support principles to support people in the least restrictive way.” from the report
Trained and familiar staff
Staff had induction, training, supervision and competency checks. Inspectors also found a mostly long-serving team and flexible staffing to meet people's needs.
“People were supported by staff who completed an induction, training and were supervised.” from the report
Choice and activities
People were supported to make choices, build independence and take part in activities that suited their interests. Records showed people went out most days.
“People were supported to pursue their interests and hobbies. Each person had their own personalised activity planner.” from the report
Improved management checks
The home improved its quality assurance systems since the previous inspection. Audits were completed and actions were taken where improvements were needed.
“Improvements had been made and the provider had acted on the recommendation made about implementing robust quality assurance systems to monitor the quality of the service.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you assess and record my relative's communication needs, and how will you make information understandable to them?
- 02What staffing level and staff skills will my relative have when going out into the community?
- 03How will you support my relative to make choices and become more independent while managing any periods of anxiety or distress?
- 04How are medicines checked, and how often are staff assessed as competent to administer or support with them?
- 05How would you support my relative's end of life wishes if their needs changed?
This inspection covered the care home premises and care, but for the supported living service it covered personal care and support only, not the premises. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 September 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.
What inspectors found, January 2017
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found the service was not always well-led because quality checks missed gaps in mental capacity assessments.
Inspectors visited on 23 November 2016. The visit was announced. They spoke with three people, two relatives, the provider and two staff members. They reviewed care records, staff recruitment and training, medicines and management checks.
The home and agency were rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. People were supported by trained staff, received their medicines safely and were helped to make choices, stay healthy and take part in activities they enjoyed.
The Well-led rating was Requires Improvement. The provider had improved several areas since the previous inspection, including risk assessments, medicines guidance, staff training and records. However, quality checks were not strong enough to identify gaps in mental capacity assessments.
The overall rating was Good. This means inspectors found the service provided good care overall, but the lower Well-led rating shows that management systems still needed improvement.
Safe care and medicines
Risks were identified, staff understood how to reduce them and medicines were managed safely. Staffing levels and recruitment checks were also found to be suitable.
“During this inspection we saw that people received their medicines in a safe way.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw staff listening to people, giving them time and supporting their dignity, privacy and independence.
“Our observations showed there was a caring culture amongst all staff and staff demonstrated they knew people well.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to choose meals, activities and college courses, and to take part in everyday tasks and community life.
“People were supported to express their views and be actively involved in decision making about their care.” from the report
Mental capacity records
needs fixingSome people were said to lack capacity in particular areas, but the required assessments and records were missing or incomplete. Inspectors said the day-to-day impact was low because staff sought consent and nobody was being deprived of their liberty.
“Despite this some mental capacity assessments had not been completed appropriately to obtain consent in relation to the care and treatment provided by staff.” from the report
Weak quality checks
needs fixingManagement checked whether tasks were completed, but did not have robust systems to check the quality of care. This meant the gaps in mental capacity assessments were not identified.
“The provider failed to pick up on shortfalls as they did not have robust quality assurance systems in place.” from the report
- 01What mental capacity assessments have now been completed for decisions about care, personal safety and managing money?
- 02What training has the provider completed on its responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act?
- 03How do your quality checks now measure the quality of care, rather than only whether tasks were completed?
- 04How are care plans and mental capacity decisions reviewed when people's needs or choices change?
- 05How can families give regular feedback, given that formal feedback questionnaires were not being used?
This was an announced inspection of the care home and domiciliary care agency, covering all five rating areas; inspectors reviewed one person's care plans and daily records. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 January 2017 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 View Care Home
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- September 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 4 March 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
77 live-in carers within about an hour of Surrey
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 £1,250 a week. 66 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
“Not only has she looked after him beautifully, she has also been great company for him with lively conversation, kindness and humour.”
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.