CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Hillbeck Residential Care Home
Rated Inadequate: inspectors found the home performing badly and the CQC has taken enforcement action.
What inspectors found, March 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe care and good management, after concerns had led to a focused inspection.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 27 February 2019. Inspectors looked at Safe and Well-led because the home had sent CQC a high number of notifications about incidents and concerns, including medicines, falls, staffing and agency staff.
Inspectors reviewed four care records, medicines records, three staff files, audits and policies. They spoke with seven people, four staff, the manager and two health and social care professionals.
They found people felt safe, medicines were managed safely, staffing levels met people's needs and risks were assessed. The home was also found to have an open culture, approachable management and effective quality checks.
The overall rating was Good. Safe and Well-led were both rated Good. This inspection did not reassess Caring, Effective or Responsive, so those areas were not covered by this report.
People felt safe
People and relatives told inspectors they felt safe. Staff understood how to report suspected abuse.
“People and their relatives told us they felt safe.” from the report
Safe medicines
Inspectors found that medicines were given on time and that systems for receiving, storing, administering and disposing of medicines were safe.
“The provider was following safe systems for the receipt, storage, administration and disposal of medicines.” from the report
Staffing and recruitment
Inspectors saw enough staff to meet people's individual needs. Recruitment checks were described as robust, and extra recruitment had reduced the need for agency staff.
“We observed that there were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to meet people's individual needs.” from the report
Effective management checks
The manager and senior staff carried out regular audits and acted when problems were found, including monitoring weight loss and referring people to a GP when needed.
“The registered manager and senior staff monitored the quality of the service and took action when issues were identified.” from the report
Open and supportive culture
Staff and people described the manager as approachable. Inspectors observed a warm, friendly and respectful atmosphere.
“The culture of the service was open, honest, caring and fully focused on people's individual needs.” from the report
High number of incident notifications
needs fixingThe inspection was prompted by a high number of notifications about incidents, including medicines, falls, staffing and agency staff. Inspectors found the home was managing these safely at the time of the visit, but families should ask what has changed since then.
“The provider had sent CQC a high number of notification about incidents that had happened within the service.” from the report
Previous agency staff concerns
needs fixingThe manager had received concerns about agency staff. The home had introduced a new process, used one agency and recruited more staff to reduce future reliance on agency workers.
“The registered manager told us that following concerns raised about agency staff they had implemented new process.” from the report
- 01What were the recent medicines, falls, staffing and agency staff incidents, and what has changed since the inspection?
- 02How often are care plans and risk assessments reviewed after a fall or other incident?
- 03How often are agency staff still used, and how do you check that they know residents' needs?
- 04What findings came from the most recent medicines audits and staff competency checks?
- 05When were Caring, Effective and Responsive last comprehensively assessed, and what were their ratings?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other three question ratings were not reassessed in this report and the previous comprehensive rating was from 27 September 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 March 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, September 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care across all five areas.
This was an unannounced inspection on 15 August 2017. Inspectors spoke with 21 people, eight relatives, five staff and four health professionals. They also checked care records, medicines, staff files, training, complaints, incidents and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people felt safe, medicines were managed properly, staffing levels met people's needs and staff had suitable training and recruitment checks.
People were treated with dignity and involved in their care. The home supported people's health, food and drink needs, independence, activities and contact with family. The report also found that complaints were investigated and the management team used audits to monitor the service.
The home was rated Good in every area at the previous inspection on 29 September 2015, and inspectors found it remained Good at this inspection.
People felt safe
People and relatives said they felt safe and well cared for. Staff had safeguarding training and knew how to report concerns.
“People felt safe with the staff that supported them.” from the report
Skilled staff
Staff received mandatory and refresher training, with additional training for specialist needs such as dementia care and end-of-life support.
“This helped staff keep their knowledge and skills up to date.” from the report
Respect and independence
People were involved in their care and supported to do things for themselves where they could. Staff were observed respecting privacy and dignity.
“People were involved in the planning and delivery of the service they received.” from the report
Activities and choice
People could take part in activities seven days a week, including activities chosen by residents and one-to-one sessions.
“The service employed a group of activity coordinators to provide activities to people seven days a week.” from the report
Quality oversight
The management team used regular audits, meetings and feedback to check the service and follow up improvement actions.
“Systems continued to be in place to monitor the quality of the service that was being provided to people.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you assess and review my relative's care plan and risks after they move in?
- 02How would you support my relative's particular dietary, nutrition and hydration needs?
- 03What activities would be suitable for my relative, and how could they help choose them?
- 04If my relative uses respite care, what information would be recorded in their short-term care plan on admission?
- 05How would you support my relative if they wanted to take their own medicines?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five questions, and all five ratings were Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 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 Hillbeck Residential Care Home
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Hillbeck Residential Care Home →
- September 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Hillbeck Residential Care Home →
- September 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 3 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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Kent
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 £1,260 a week. 33 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
“Irene was a very kind and empathetic carer who knew just the right words to say to put a smile on my face.”
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.