CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Hillcroft House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that people were protected from avoidable harm. Risks and medicines were managed safely, infection controls were in place and staff had safeguarding and safety training.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found that staff understood their roles, felt supported and had access to team meetings, supervision and competency checks. Governance systems helped identify and address shortfalls.
What inspectors found, October 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found safe care and stronger leadership, but staffing and management stability still need watching.
This was an unannounced focused inspection. Inspectors visited on 28 September and gave detailed feedback on 7 October 2022. They checked whether earlier improvements had been made, especially around safety and leadership.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. People said they felt safe. Inspectors found that risks, medicines, safeguarding, infection control and maintenance were managed safely. There were enough staff to meet people's needs, although the provider was still recruiting and using agency staff.
Staff understood their roles and felt supported by the interim management arrangements. Quality checks were being used to find and address problems. The previous overall rating was Requires Improvement, but the home was no longer in breach of Regulation 12. The other key question ratings were carried forward from the earlier inspection.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe and were at ease with staff. Staff understood people's risks and how to support them safely.
“People told us they felt safe in the home. They said staff were attentive and they were supported to use mobility aids and equipment safely.” from the report
Medicines were managed safely
Medicines were stored correctly, records matched stock and staff received training and competency checks. Staff explained medicines and sought consent before giving them.
“Medicines systems were well organised with people receiving their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Infection control
The home had good infection prevention arrangements. Inspectors were assured that PPE, hygiene, outbreak planning and visiting arrangements were being managed safely.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Improved leadership systems
Staff knew their responsibilities and felt supported by the interim management team. Audits and action plans were used to track improvements.
“Quality assurance processes were in place. This gave the provider and management team an overview of the home, helping ensure people received safe, quality care and support.” from the report
Staffing relied on agency workers
needs fixingThe provider was recruiting to fill vacancies but was using agency staff when needed. Some permanent staff said this could mean explaining or supervising tasks, so inspectors recommended continued close monitoring of staffing.
“Agency staff were used to fill gaps in staffing and some permanent staff shared that this was not always ideal as they had to explain or supervise them with certain tasks.” from the report
Frequent management changes
needs fixingThere had been several changes in managers and no registered manager had been in post since July 2022. The interim arrangements had helped, but families may want to check how the new manager is settling in.
“There has been a lot of changes with the different managers, different ways of doing things, not always been clear what was expected and it's been unsettling in the home.” from the report
Some areas needed attention
minorInspectors found that some parts of the home needed repair or improvement. These issues were addressed during the inspection, and a programme of further works was planned.
“We noted that some parts of the home were in need of attention and this was addressed during our inspection.” from the report
- 01How are staffing levels checked on each shift, including at weekends?
- 02How many agency staff are currently being used, and how are they introduced to people's needs?
- 03Who is the new registered manager, and what support will they receive during the transition?
- 04Which improvements to the décor and layout are still outstanding, and when will they be completed?
- 05Can we see the previous comprehensive inspection report covering Effective, Caring and Responsive?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other key question ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 October 2022 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, April 2020
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, effective care but unsafe medicines, weak nutritional risk checks and ineffective oversight.
The inspection took place on 13 March 2020. The inspector spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked care records, medicine records, staff files and management records.
People and relatives generally said they were happy with the home and praised the kindness of staff. The home was clean and well maintained. Care planning, activities, communication, consent and access to health professionals were generally good.
However, nutritional risks were not always reviewed or acted on. Some medicines were not safely managed, including a missing prescribed medicine, missing guidance for occasional medicines and missing medicine-record signatures. The new manager had been in post for three weeks and had started making changes, but the home’s checks had not found these problems.
The overall rating is Requires Improvement. Safe and well-led were rated Requires Improvement, while effective, caring and responsive were rated Good. The previous overall rating was Good, published on 22 June 2017.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives spoke positively about the care. Staff showed patience and supported people with dignity, privacy and respect.
“People were treated with kindness and compassion.” from the report
Good care planning
People’s needs and preferences were assessed and used to create care plans. Staff supported people to make choices and worked within the Mental Capacity Act principles.
“These plans reflected people's diverse needs, including aspects of their life which were important to them.” from the report
Staff training and health support
Staff received induction and ongoing training. The home worked with community nurses and other professionals when people needed health support.
“Staff used the skills gained through induction and on-going training to carry out their roles effectively.” from the report
Clean and suitable environment
The building was clean, maintained and accessible. Rooms were warm and personalised, with aids and adaptations available.
“The premises were accessible and suitable for the needs of the people living there, with aids and adaptations available to assist people and to encourage independence.” from the report
Nutritional risks were not reliably monitored
seriousSome nutritional assessments were not updated when people’s needs changed. Required weights and prescribed high-calorie drinks were not consistently recorded or followed up.
“There was a period of around four months where any nutritional risks were not being reviewed.” from the report
Medicine records and storage were unsafe
seriousA prescribed occasional sedative could not be found. Some occasional medicines lacked clear instructions, and several medicine records had missing signatures.
“There were several missing signatures on some of the MARs we checked.” from the report
Choking risk was recorded incorrectly
seriousOne person assessed by a healthcare professional as being at high risk of choking was recorded in the care plan as being at low risk. This meant suitable risk-reduction steps were not identified.
“The provider had failed to adequately assess and mitigate against the risks of harm to people.” from the report
Management checks were not effective
needs fixingAudits and checks had not identified the problems with nutritional risk management and medicines. This contributed to the well-led rating of Requires Improvement.
“This meant that the audits in place were not always effective.” from the report
Mealtimes needed better organisation
needs fixingThe midday meal was sometimes hectic. Staff moved between people and did not always have enough time to give full support or make the meal a sociable experience.
“We recommend the provider reviews the dining experience to ensure people receive their meals in a timely manner and ensure mealtimes are a sociable experience.” from the report
- 01How have you corrected the missing medicine records, missing signatures and missing instructions for occasional medicines?
- 02How do you now check that medicines are safely stored, counted and recorded?
- 03How are people’s weights, nutritional assessments and prescribed supplements being monitored and acted on?
- 04What has been done to correct the inaccurate choking-risk assessment and prevent similar errors?
- 05How have mealtimes and support for people eating in their rooms or joining the dining room changed?
This inspection considered all five CQC questions and compared them with the previous ratings from 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 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.
Every inspection of Hillcroft House
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2020Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2015GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 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
23 live-in carers within about an hour of Suffolk
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 £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 17 can care for a couple. 7 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
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.