CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Hill View
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment checks, suitable risk assessments and safe medicine procedures. The home was clean and had increased hand hygiene and cleaning because of coronavirus.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and reviewed, and staff had training in areas including epilepsy, autism and person-centred support. People's health, nutrition and communication needs were supported.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff knew people well and supported their dignity, privacy, choices and relationships. People and relatives were involved in care planning and decisions where appropriate.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and regularly updated. People were supported with communication, activities, community visits and relationships in ways that matched their interests and wishes.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found open management, regular audits and action plans. The registered manager was on special leave, but two registered managers from other services shared cover and provided oversight.
What inspectors found, April 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with interim management and pending DoLS renewals to ask about.
The inspection took place on 13 March 2020 and was announced the evening before. One inspector spoke with people, managers and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records. Most people could not give their views verbally because of complex communication needs.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found staff knew people well, supported their choices and communication, and helped them take part in activities and everyday tasks. They found enough staff, safe medicine systems, clean surroundings and suitable training.
The registered manager was on special leave during the visit. Two registered managers from other services shared the cover, and inspectors found good oversight and quality checks. Applications to renew Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisations were waiting to be processed for all but one person who had an authorisation.
Staff know people well
Staff understood people's individual needs, likes, dislikes and ways of communicating. This helped them provide personal support and notice when people needed help.
“People were supported by staff who knew them very well.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were encouraged to make choices, learn skills and take part in daily tasks such as laundry and cleaning. Activities were chosen around individual interests.
“People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff on shifts and checks to ensure staff were suitable to work at the home. Medicine administration, storage and recording were described as safe.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Strong oversight
Regular audits and monitoring visits checked the running of the home. Inspectors found that actions identified through these checks were dealt with promptly.
“Quality assurance systems were comprehensive and ensured all aspects of the running of the home were examined regularly” from the report
DoLS renewals were pending
minorApplications had been submitted to renew authorisations for all but one person who had a DoLS authorisation. The home was waiting for these applications to be processed.
“All but one person had DoLS authorisations. Applications had been submitted to renew these and the home was waiting for these to be processed.” from the report
Registered manager was absent
minorThe registered manager was on special leave during the inspection. Cover was provided by two registered managers from other services, which inspectors found gave good oversight.
“At the time of inspection, the registered manager was on special leave.” from the report
- 01What is the current position on the DoLS renewal applications, and are any authorisations still waiting to be processed?
- 02Who is currently responsible for managing the home, and what cover is provided when the registered manager is away?
- 03How do staff check that each person's individual communication method and preferences are understood by new or agency staff?
- 04What staffing levels are provided on each shift, and how are absences covered?
- 05How are people's activities and community access being supported when day centres or planned activities are unavailable?
This was a planned inspection covering the home, the care provided and all five CQC questions; most people could not verbally share their views because of complex communication and support needs. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 April 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.
What inspectors found, September 2017
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but the home needed to improve its record keeping and leadership systems.
This was a comprehensive, unannounced inspection on 20 and 23 June 2017. The inspector observed care, spoke with staff and managers, and reviewed care plans, risk assessments, staff recruitment records, audits and other records.
The home was rated Good for safe, effective, caring and responsive care. Staff knew people well, supported their communication and choices, and helped them take part in activities, use local facilities and go on holiday. Medicines, staffing, recruitment, training, food and healthcare were also found to be managed safely and effectively.
The well-led rating was Requires Improvement. Inspectors found that some records did not keep up with changes in people's needs or explain how those needs should be met. The home made some changes during the inspection, but inspectors recommended continued monitoring of care plan records.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff communicating in ways people could understand. Staff knew people well and respected their privacy, dignity and choices.
“Staff knew people well and displayed kindness and compassion when supporting people.” from the report
Personalised activities
People were supported to take part in activities they chose, use local amenities, attend day centres and clubs, visit relatives and take holidays.
“Each person was supported to use local amenities on an almost daily basis.” from the report
Improvement since the last inspection
The previous inspection had found concerns about caring practice and records. Inspectors saw a caring approach and significant progress with record keeping at this inspection.
“At this inspection we found significant progress had been made, but there were still a couple of areas in relation to record keeping that required improvement.” from the report
Records did not always reflect changes
needs fixingSome care records did not explain changed needs or how staff should meet them. Inspectors recommended continued monitoring of care plan documentation.
“Record keeping did not always state people's changed needs and how they should be met.” from the report
One care issue was not documented
needs fixingOne person regularly refused part of their personal care. Although professional advice had been sought, the refusal, its possible impact and the care provided had not been recorded before the inspection.
“There was no care plan or risk assessment in relation to this and whilst staff told us they regularly tried to provide this care, this had not been documented.” from the report
A decision record was missing
minorInspectors found one example where a best interests decision about a health procedure had not been recorded. This was put right by the end of the inspection.
“We found one example where the registered manager had not ensured that a best interests decision had been made in relation to a health procedure for one person but this had been resolved by the end of our inspection.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure care plans and risk assessments are updated promptly when a person's needs change?
- 02How do you record and review situations where someone refuses part of their personal care?
- 03How are decisions made and recorded when a person cannot make a complex health decision?
- 04How do you make sure staff understand the communication methods and signs of distress used by each person?
- 05What changes have you made since the inspection to improve monitoring of care records?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five areas of care and management, based on observations, discussions and a review of selected records. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 September 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
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- April 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2016Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 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
19 live-in carers within about an hour of East Sussex
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 £1,000 to £1,400 a week. 13 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“When he point blank refused to go into hospital for a life saving blood transfusion she talked him through the situation and agreed to go in the ambulance with him and stayed until he was settled.”
“Una felt safe, secure and loved in her time with Debbie which is a gift that I am eternally grateful for.”
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.