CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Hilltop
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from avoidable harm. Inspectors found suitable risk plans, safe medicines systems, trained staff and a clean, well-maintained home.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received care based on current practice, with staff training and support in place. Their health, nutrition, communication needs and legal rights were considered.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. They understood people's communication methods, preferences and support needs.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and people were supported to choose activities, develop skills and access college, groups and other community activities. Inspectors noted that changes in needs during some respite stays were not always recorded.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had established management and quality checks. Managers and staff were described as approachable, supportive and willing to learn from mistakes.
What inspectors found, May 2019
Hilltop rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with one recording shortfall about respite stays.
This was an unannounced inspection on 10 April 2019. One inspector observed care, spoke with managers and care staff, contacted two relatives, and checked care, medicines, complaints, recruitment and training records.
The home supported four people with learning or physical disabilities and/or autism. Inspectors found people were safe, treated with kindness and dignity, supported to make choices, and helped to take part in activities and community life. Staff knew people's needs well and there were enough staff.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was the same overall rating as the previous inspection, published on 25 October 2016.
Staff knew people well
People were supported by a consistent team who understood their needs and risks. Extra staff and transport were available for community activities.
“People were supported by an established staff team who knew their needs well.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw warm interactions and found that staff adapted their communication to each person's abilities. People were supported to express choices and maintain independence.
“We saw staff chatting with people in a friendly and warm way.” from the report
Personalised activities
People were supported to take part in activities at home and in the community, including college, social groups and exercise.
“People were encouraged and supported to have access to a wide range of activities in the community” from the report
Good safety and medicines systems
Risk plans were personalised and medicines records had no gaps. Staff were trained to manage medicines and specific health risks.
“People's medicines administration records were completed with no gaps.” from the report
Strong management oversight
The provider and managers carried out checks on care plans, medicines and the care being delivered. They reviewed incidents and shared learning with staff.
“Effective quality assurance checks were carried out by key staff members, the registered manager as well as the operations manager who regularly visited the home.” from the report
Respite changes not always recorded
needs fixingWhen families shared changes in a person's needs at the start of a respite stay, this information was not consistently recorded. The manager said this would be addressed immediately.
“Family communicated changes in people's care needs at the beginning of their respite period, however this was not consistently recorded.” from the report
- 01How do you record and check changes in a person's needs when they begin a respite stay?
- 02How will you make sure family information about care needs is recorded and passed to all relevant staff?
- 03What community activities, courses or groups could my relative take part in?
- 04How would you support my relative to communicate choices, preferences or concerns?
- 05How are medicines and individual health risks checked and reviewed?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall quality and safety of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 May 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 2016
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and individualised care, but some required notifications had not been sent.
This was an unannounced inspection on 13 September 2016. One inspector observed care, spoke with people and staff, and reviewed care, medicines, recruitment, training, complaints, accident and quality records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas. Inspectors found care was tailored to complex needs. Staff had suitable training, medicines were handled safely, people were treated with dignity, and their health and choices were supported.
People had access to activities at home and in the community. The home had enough staff and an open manager. Inspectors also found that some statutory notifications about rejected deprivation of liberty applications had not been sent, although these were sent to the CQC during the inspection.
Individual care
Inspectors found that support reflected people's complex health needs, preferences and communication styles.
“People received highly individualised care which reflected their complex health needs.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines records were checked and audited. Staff were observed giving medicines safely, including medicines needed when people went out.
“Medicines administration records (MAR) had been completed correctly and were audited by staff to make sure any gaps were followed up.” from the report
Activities and choice
People took part in activities at home and in the community, including swimming, yoga, social clubs and day trips.
“People had busy lifestyles which reflected their lifestyle choices and likes and dislikes.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The provider used visits, feedback, surveys and checks of accidents and health and safety to monitor the service.
“Quality assurance processes monitored the standard of care provided to people.” from the report
Late statutory notifications
needs fixingThe manager had sent notifications when deprivation of liberty applications were approved, but not when they were rejected. The missing notifications were sent to the CQC during the inspection.
“They had submitted statutory notifications when the deprivation of liberty safeguards had been approved but not when they had been rejected.” from the report
Activity costs
minorSome staff said the cost of activities affected what people could do. Staff also raised resources, including activities and staffing, as an issue.
“Some staff thought the costs of some activities impacted on what people were able to do.” from the report
- 01How do you adjust staffing when a person staying for a short period has more complex needs?
- 02What specialist training will staff supporting my relative have, and how is refresher training monitored?
- 03How do you make sure all required deprivation of liberty notifications are sent, including rejected applications?
- 04Which activities would my relative be able to attend, and could activity costs limit their choices?
- 05How will you keep my relative's care plan and health information up to date if their needs change?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service and all five CQC questions; inspectors observed care, spoke with people and staff, and reviewed care and management records. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 October 2016 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
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 January 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
38 live-in carers within about an hour of Gloucestershire
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 £1,030 to £1,360 a week. 31 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
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.