CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Hillside Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, June 2019
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, caring and personalised support, but the well-led rating Requires Improvement because recent improvements had not yet been fully sustained.
This was a planned comprehensive inspection on 9 May 2019. One inspector reviewed records, medicines, incidents and complaints, and spoke with the person living at the home, a staff member, the registered manager and a relative.
The person and their relative said they felt safe. Inspectors found suitable risk plans, safe medicines practice, enough trained staff, regular healthcare and care that supported choice, independence and meaningful activities. The home was clean and staff knew the person well.
The overall rating was Good. Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive were all rated Good. Well-led was rated Requires Improvement because improvements were recent, audit records did not always contain enough detail, and inspectors wanted to see that changes were sustained.
Safe risk management
Risk assessments had been reviewed and updated. Staff followed documented plans and recorded concerns and incidents.
“Since our last visit, risk assessments had been reviewed and updated.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored and administered safely. Records showed no gaps or discrepancies, and staff competency had been checked.
“Records of medicines were accurate. Staff clearly recorded when they had administered medicines and records contained no gaps or discrepancies.” from the report
Personalised support
Care planning reflected the person's background, choices, interests, beliefs and daily preferences. The person was encouraged to make choices and be independent.
“Care plans were written based on the person's preferences and choices.” from the report
Good health support
The home had introduced a system to track health appointments and outcomes. The person had regular contact with health professionals.
“The provider had introduced a tracker system that made it easier to monitor health check-ups and appointments.” from the report
Audit detail
needs fixingAlthough audits were taking place and actions were recorded, some weekly and monthly checks were too much like checklists and did not show enough detail.
“Whilst audits were identifying and addressing issues, the level of detail of checks was not consistent.” from the report
Improvements need to last
needs fixingThe provider had made significant changes since the previous inspection, but inspectors had not yet seen enough evidence that these changes were fully established over time.
“Improvements to care delivery were recent and had yet to become fully embedded and sustained.” from the report
- 01How have you kept the recent improvements going since the May 2019 inspection?
- 02How much detail is now recorded in the weekly and monthly audits?
- 03How do you check that risk plans still reflect the person's current needs and behaviour?
- 04How are healthcare appointments, outcomes and changes to care plans tracked now?
- 05How will you involve my relative in choices about activities, food, beliefs and daily care?
This was a planned comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions; the overall rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection, while Well-led remained Requires Improvement pending evidence of sustained improvement. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 June 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, October 2018
Rated Requires Improvement overall, with well-led rated Inadequate; inspectors found kind interactions but serious gaps in safety, records and management.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 28 August 2018. The inspector spoke with two people, the manager and two care staff. They reviewed care plans, risk assessments, medicines records, mental capacity assessments, staff files, audits and meeting records. They also observed care and staff interactions.
The home supported two people with learning disabilities, autism and mental health conditions. Inspectors found staff were kind, respectful and encouraged independence. Medicines were managed safely, the home was clean, and there were enough staff during the day.
However, the home did not consistently manage risks, report incidents, arrange healthcare, involve people in care planning or provide planned activities. Records were incomplete. There was also unclear information about fees and failures to follow the legal process for some financial decisions.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive were all rated Requires Improvement. Well-led was rated Inadequate. This was a clear deterioration from the previous Good rating in December 2015, when there were no legal breaches.
Kind staff interactions
Inspectors saw warm interactions between staff and people. Staff supported people respectfully and appeared to know them well.
“We observed pleasant caring interactions between people and staff.” from the report
Promoting independence
Staff encouraged people to take part in everyday tasks and supported them to be as independent as possible.
“Support was in place to encourage people to be independent.” from the report
Safe medicines management
Medicines were stored securely and administration records were generally accurate and checked regularly.
“People's medicines were managed and administered safely.” from the report
Food and dietary support
Care plans recorded food preferences and dietary needs. People were supported to shop for and prepare suitable meals.
“People's dietary needs were met.” from the report
Risks and incidents
seriousRisk plans were not strong enough for known risks, including at night. Accidents and incidents were not always recorded or analysed, so the home could not reliably learn from them.
“The shortfalls in planning to manage risks and the lack of documentation relating to accidents and incidents were a breach of Regulation 12” from the report
Safeguarding reports
seriousImportant incidents, injuries and unexplained bruising were not always shared with the local authority or other relevant agencies.
“The failure to report incidents in a transparent way was a breach of Regulation 13” from the report
Healthcare follow-up
needs fixingHealthcare appointments were not always booked or tracked. Important hospital information was missing, and a choking incident did not lead to a recorded referral to a speech and language therapist.
“The lack of dental check-up had not been identified by the provider” from the report
Person-centred care
needs fixingCare plans did not always explain people's routines, preferences, goals or support needs. Activities were often not attended but remained on schedules.
“The lack of person-centred care planning and shortfalls in activities were a breach of Regulation 9” from the report
Unclear fees
needs fixingPeople and relatives were not given enough clear information about what they had to pay for, including staff meals, petrol, holidays and some furniture.
“It was unclear what people were responsible for paying for.” from the report
Weak management oversight
seriousAudits did not identify problems found by inspectors, records were incomplete and the provider failed to notify CQC about important incidents.
“The lack of robust auditing and shortfalls in record keeping were a breach of Regulation 17” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to risk plans and night-time staffing since the inspection?
- 02How do you now record, review and report accidents, injuries, safeguarding concerns and other incidents?
- 03How are healthcare appointments, hospital information and changes in people's health tracked now?
- 04How do you involve each person in care planning, religious support and activities that reflect their own interests?
- 05Can you give me a complete written breakdown of all fees and explain how payments for staff meals, petrol, holidays and room items are agreed?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions and also examining safeguarding concerns about information sharing, person-centred care, healthcare access and finances. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 October 2018 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 Hillside Care Home
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2019Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- March 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 February 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.