CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Hillside House
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors were assured that the home was using protective equipment safely, carrying out testing, managing visitors and maintaining infection control. The provider said it had measures to manage COVID-19-related staffing pressures and had no staffing concerns.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, January 2022
Hillside House was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control and safe arrangements for visits during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This was a planned, announced inspection on 18 January 2022. Inspectors gave one day's notice and checked infection prevention and control, including staffing pressures linked to COVID-19.
Inspectors found the home was clean. Staff used protective equipment correctly. There were clear infection control signs, regular testing, and checks on visitors' risks, temperatures, COVID passes and lateral flow results.
People and relatives were encouraged to visit, and people could also use Skype and phone calls. People continued to access the community and activities. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not provide a full overall quality rating.
Clear infection control
The home displayed clear reminders about infection prevention and control at the entrance and around the building.
“There was prominent and clear infection prevention and control (IPC) signs which reminded everyone at the point of entry and throughout the home about procedures for IPC.” from the report
Clean home and correct PPE
Inspectors saw staff using protective equipment correctly and found the home very clean. Daily visual checks were also carried out.
“We observed staff correctly wearing personal protective equipment (PPE). The service was very clean throughout.” from the report
Visits and community access
People and relatives were encouraged to visit, with phone and Skype contact also available. People continued to access the community and activities.
“People and relatives were actively encouraged to visit the home as well as skype and phone calls.” from the report
Testing and vaccination
The home was using regular testing, and all residents and staff had received both COVID-19 vaccinations at the time of the inspection.
“The home was accessing regular testing for both staff and residents. All residents and staff had received both COVID-19 vaccinations.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are you currently managing COVID-19 or other infection risks for residents, staff and visitors?
- 02How do you check that staff and visiting professionals meet the current vaccination or exemption requirements?
- 03How are visits, phone calls and video calls arranged now, and what happens if there is an outbreak?
- 04How do you manage staffing pressures when staff are absent because of illness or COVID-19?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated overall. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 January 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, personalised care but ongoing concerns about training, medicines and management checks.
Inspectors visited on 12 March 2020. They spoke with people, staff, relatives and a professional, observed care, and checked records, training information and quality checks.
The home was rated Good for caring and responsive care. People were treated kindly, had personalised support, and were helped to make choices, stay independent and take part in activities.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for safe, effective and well-led care. Inspectors found medicines were not always managed safely, staff training was not consistently up to date, and care and management records did not always contain enough information.
The overall rating remains Requires Improvement, as at the previous inspection. The home had improved in some areas, but it was still in breach of two regulations.
Kind and respectful staff
People were treated with kindness, patience and respect. Inspectors saw positive relationships and a relaxed atmosphere.
“We observed staff displaying patience and understanding with people and stepping in to de-escalate any distress behaviour appropriately.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's likes, dislikes and preferences. Staff used one-page profiles and regular meetings to review care and goals.
“Care planning was detailed and demonstrated that people's likes, dislikes and preferences had been incorporated into their support plans.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make choices, use communal and private spaces, develop life skills and access the community.
“Positive risk assessments were in place to promote people's freedom and independence, to allow them to access the community in a safe and non-restrictive way.” from the report
Communication support
Communication needs were assessed, with information provided in different formats and staff using picture cards and non-verbal communication where needed.
“Information had been made available in different formats such as large print and staff used a range of techniques including non-verbal communication and picture cards to help people communicate effectively.” from the report
Medicines were not always managed safely
seriousOne as-needed constipation medicine was given daily without the reasons being recorded or clear instructions for staff. Some nutritional thickener was also not locked away, although this was dealt with immediately.
“One person was prescribed an 'as required' medicine for constipation which staff had been giving daily, but they had not documented the reasons why it had been given.” from the report
Staff training was incomplete
seriousTraining was not consistently up to date. Inspectors found gaps in food hygiene, challenging behaviour and training linked to specific health needs.
“Some improvements were needed to training provision to ensure all staff received an appropriate mix of training.” from the report
Management checks were not robust enough
seriousQuality systems had not reliably identified problems with training, medicines and care records. This was a breach of the good governance regulation.
“Quality assurance systems were in place, but they were not sufficiently robust.” from the report
Some care records lacked detail
needs fixingRecords did not always explain people's healthcare needs or show clearly how capacity and best-interest decisions had been made. The report recommended improving this documentation.
“Specific capacity assessments and best interest decisions needed to be clearly documenting to fully demonstrate that decisions made for people without capacity had been made in their best interest.” from the report
Staff turnover affected continuity
needs fixingSeven of 10 permanent support workers had started within the previous year. Inspectors said this had made it harder to build long-term trusting relationships.
“High staff turnover is a barrier to people and staff developing long term trusting relationships.” from the report
- 01What has changed since the inspection to make sure as-needed medicines are given only when needed, with clear instructions and records?
- 02How many staff are now fully trained in food hygiene, challenging behaviour, catheter care and epilepsy?
- 03How do you check that staff have the skills needed for each person's healthcare needs?
- 04How are capacity assessments and best-interest decisions now recorded for matters such as bed rails, sensor mats and finances?
- 05What quality checks are now used to identify and correct problems with medicines, training and care records?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC key questions, following the home's previous Requires Improvement rating. 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.
Every inspection of Hillside House
4 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- January 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2020Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- October 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 27 October 2015.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Leeds
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. 89 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“Took his time to learn about me read my care plan and to listen to me. great companionship with lots of laughing.”
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.