CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Hillcrest Residential Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed, including through screening visitors, using protective equipment, regular testing, cleaning and individual risk assessments.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not covered by this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, February 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection-control measures at Hillcrest Residential Care Home.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 3 February 2021. Inspectors looked at how the home prevented and controlled COVID-19 infections.
They found visitors were screened, given masks and offered protective equipment. Staff were wearing the correct protective equipment, and people and staff took part in regular testing.
Inspectors found increased cleaning, a clean and hygienic environment, and individual COVID-19 risk assessments. They were assured that the home was managing visitors, admissions, shielding, testing and infection outbreaks safely.
The service was inspected but not rated. This inspection did not provide an overall quality rating.
Protective equipment
Staff were observed wearing the correct protective equipment throughout the inspection. Protective equipment was also available for visitors.
“We observed staff to be wearing the correct personal protective equipment (PPE) throughout the inspection.” from the report
Testing and vaccination
People and staff were taking part in regular COVID-19 testing. The report also records that people had received the vaccine.
“People and staff were taking part in regular COVID-19 testing.” from the report
Clean environment
The home had increased its cleaning routines to reduce the risk of infection, and inspectors found the environment clean and hygienic.
“The service had increased the cleaning schedules and routines to reduce the risks of cross infection.” from the report
Visiting arrangements
Visitors were screened, had their temperature checked and were given masks. Earlier garden and indoor visits had been booked and managed with screens in place.
“All visitors were asked to complete a health screening form, have their temperature checked and were provided with face masks to wear throughout their visit.” from the report
Individual risk assessments
People had risk assessments reflecting their specific COVID-19 needs.
“People had individual risk assessments in place that reflected their specific needs in relation to COVID-19.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visitors currently screened and what protective equipment are they expected to use?
- 02How often are people living here and staff tested for COVID-19?
- 03How are individual infection-related risk assessments reviewed when a person's needs change?
- 04What cleaning routines are in place to reduce the risk of cross infection?
- 05How would the home manage a suspected infection outbreak?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control measures during the coronavirus pandemic, so the service was inspected but not rated overall. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 February 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, January 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, with some records needing improvement.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 17 December 2019. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff. They observed care, meals, medicines and activities, and checked care, medicine, staffing and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were safe, treated kindly and supported by staff who understood their needs. People received their medicines on time, had suitable food and could take part in activities.
There were some gaps in records. Instructions and reasons for some as-required medicines were not always recorded, and some care plans were incomplete or out of date. The registered manager said these issues had been addressed after the inspection.
The overall Good rating was unchanged from the previous inspection, published on 15 June 2017.
Kind and respectful care
People told inspectors that staff were kind and caring. Staff knew people well and treated them as individuals.
“People told us staff were kind and caring and treated them with respect.” from the report
People felt safe
Risks were assessed and reviewed, staff understood safeguarding, and people and relatives said the home was safe.
“People and their relatives felt the service was safe.” from the report
Trained and sufficient staff
Inspectors found enough safely recruited staff, and staff said they received the training and support needed for their roles.
“Sufficient numbers of safely recruited staff were deployed to meet the needs of people living at the service.” from the report
Activities and personal support
People could join activities and go to local places with staff. Staff understood people's individual needs and interests.
“People had the opportunity to participate in a range of activities and to visit the local café, pub and shops with staff.” from the report
Open management
The registered manager welcomed concerns and used checks and audits to monitor quality and safety.
“Effective systems were in place to check the quality and safety of the service.” from the report
As-required medicines records
needs fixingInstructions for some as-required medicines and creams were not always available, and the reasons for giving them were not always recorded. The registered manager took immediate action.
“Guidance for when to administer 'as required' medicines and creams was not always in place and the reason for administering them had not always been recorded.” from the report
Care plans needed updating
needs fixingSome parts of some care plans did not record activity preferences or were incomplete and out of date. The registered manager said this had been addressed after the inspection.
“Information about people's life histories and what was important to them was recorded however some sections of some care plans needed completing and updating.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure instructions and reasons are recorded for every as-required medicine and cream?
- 02How often are care plans checked and updated, especially information about life history, preferences and activities?
- 03How are people and relatives involved in care planning and regular reviews?
- 04What activities are currently available for people living with dementia, including trips outside the home?
- 05How do your audits identify and follow up any medicine or care record problems?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five key questions, with observations of care, meals, medicines and activities and reviews of care, staffing and management records. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 January 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 Hillcrest Residential Care Home
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Hillcrest Residential Care Home →
- January 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Hillcrest Residential Care Home →
- June 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 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
84 live-in carers within about an hour of Cheshire West and Chester
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. 76 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“She is an exemplary carer, she is knowledgable empathetic and very respectful in the home.”
“It was clear that she genuinely cared and her warm approach really helped put our minds at ease.”
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.