CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Hilltop Manor Care Home Limited
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection control, testing, PPE and visiting arrangements during a COVID-19 outbreak.
This was a targeted inspection on 24 January 2022. It looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and whether COVID-19 staffing pressures affected care. The inspection was announced 24 hours in advance.
Inspectors found good practice. Staff followed guidance on PPE and infection control. There was enough PPE, testing was taking place, and staff monitored people for COVID-19 symptoms. Audits were used to check that safe care and guidance were being followed.
The home supported people's social and emotional wellbeing during the outbreak. Visiting followed government guidance, so only essential visitors could enter at that time. Families could keep in touch through video calls and phone calls.
The overall service and Safe question were recorded as 'Inspected but not rated'. This means the visit checked specific areas rather than giving a new overall quality rating.
Infection control
Staff followed infection control guidance and the home had an ample supply of PPE. Stock levels were monitored.
“Staff followed government guidance in relation to personal protective equipment (PPE) and infection prevention and control (IPC) practices.” from the report
Testing and monitoring
Testing took place for staff and some people using the service. Staff monitored people for COVID-19 symptoms and had processes for responding to symptoms.
“COVID-19 testing was taking place for all staff and some service users.” from the report
Family contact
During the outbreak, the home supported people to keep in touch with families when visitors could not enter unless they were essential.
“During the outbreak people who did not have essential visitors, kept in touch with their families through video calls and phone calls.” from the report
Checks and training
The home used audits to check safe care and guidance. Staff had training in infection control, including PPE and hand hygiene.
“All staff had undertaken training in IPC.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What are the current visiting arrangements, and have they changed since the COVID-19 outbreak described in the report?
- 02How are staff pressures monitored now, and what happens if COVID-19 or other absences affect staffing?
- 03How often are staff and residents tested, and how are symptoms monitored?
- 04How much PPE is currently held, and how are stock levels checked?
- 05How can residents keep in touch with family if visiting is restricted?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it did not provide new ratings for the other questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 February 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, July 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and effective care, but safety checks, staff organisation and oversight were not always reliable.
The CQC carried out a planned inspection on 8 and 14 May 2019. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals. They reviewed care records, medicine records, recruitment files and management records.
People generally felt safe and happy. Staff were kind, respectful and familiar with people's needs. Food, activities, healthcare support and care planning were generally good. The home was rated Good for Effective, Caring and Responsive.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Safe and Well-led. Staff numbers were enough, but staff were not always organised so someone was available in communal areas. Some safety checks had not been completed, recruitment checks were not always robust, and management checks had missed issues found by inspectors.
The previous inspection was also Requires Improvement and found two breaches. The report says improvements had been made and the home was no longer in breach of regulations at this inspection.
Kind and respectful staff
People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff knew people's needs and gave patient, unrushed support.
“People were relaxed with staff, laughing and talking together, and comfortable seeking their support.” from the report
Good food support
Food and drink were provided according to people's dietary needs and preferences. Staff monitored intake when there were concerns.
“A variety of food and drink was available according to people's dietary needs and preferences.” from the report
Good healthcare links
Staff worked with GPs, district nurses and mental health workers. Healthcare professionals said staff knew the people they supported.
“Healthcare professionals told us staff were knowledgeable about the people they supported.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People could join quizzes, singing, parties, church services and trips. Staff also spent one-to-one time with people.
“A variety of activities were available for people to participate in.” from the report
Staff not always visible
seriousAlthough staffing levels were enough overall, staff were sometimes not present in communal areas when people might have needed support.
“Staff continually moved around the home, but there were times when there were no staff in communal areas, should people have required support.” from the report
Safety checks incomplete
seriousBed rail checks and an asbestos survey had not been completed. Not all staff had taken part in fire drills or practice evacuations.
“Some essential checks of equipment and the environment had not been completed.” from the report
Recruitment records not robust
needs fixingSome gaps in employment histories were not explored and references were not always verified.
“For example, gaps in people's employment were not always explored or references verified.” from the report
Management checks missed issues
needs fixingThe home's monitoring systems had not identified some of the problems found by inspectors, including missing fire drills.
“These checks had highlighted and addressed some areas for improvement but had not raised the issues we did during the inspection.” from the report
- 01How have you made sure bed rail checks, asbestos checks and fire drills are now completed and recorded?
- 02How do you organise staff so someone is available in communal areas throughout the day and night?
- 03How are employment gaps and references checked for every new member of staff?
- 04How do care plan reviews show the involvement of residents and their relatives?
- 05What evidence can you show of the improvements made since this inspection?
This was a planned inspection that looked at the overall quality and safety of the home and rated all five key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 July 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.
Every inspection of Hilltop Manor Care Home Limited
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Hilltop Manor Care Home Limited →
- July 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Hilltop Manor Care Home Limited →
- June 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 11 April 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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of North Yorkshire
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 £1,010 to £1,290 a week. 27 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“She was always 'just present enough': attentive, available, kind and engaging, but without ever over-stepping any boundary”
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.