CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Hilton House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about most infection-control arrangements, including testing, admissions, visiting and hygiene. They found that masks were not always fitted correctly and that two policies needed updating.
- Effective?
- Good
- 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?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection-control arrangements but masks were not always fitted correctly and some policies needed updating.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 20 January 2022. It focused on infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and the effect of COVID-19 staffing pressures.
Inspectors found flexible visiting arrangements, support for people to go out and continue activities, regular COVID-19 testing, vaccination support and enough personal protective equipment for staff.
They were assured about most infection-control arrangements. However, staff masks were slipping down because they were not always fitted over the nose. The infection-control and visitors' policies also needed to reflect the home's arrangements more closely.
The service was inspected but not rated. This report does not give an overall quality rating or ratings for the other four questions.
Flexible visiting
The home had visiting arrangements designed to help people keep in touch with friends and relatives safely.
“Flexible, safe, visiting arrangements were in place to support people in keeping in contact with their friends and relatives.” from the report
Support to stay active
Staff supported people to go out safely and continue activities they enjoyed. The home was also creating easy-to-read COVID-19 information.
“Staff supported people to go out safely and continue activities they enjoy.” from the report
Testing and vaccination
Regular testing was in place for staff and residents, and people were supported to access COVID-19 vaccinations.
“Systems were in place to minimise the risk / detect COVID-19 coming into the service.” from the report
Staff equipment and support
Staff said they felt supported and had access to enough personal protective equipment.
“Staff felt supported by the management, who had ensured they had access to enough personal protective equipment to safely carry out their role.” from the report
Masks not always fitted correctly
needs fixingStaff had received mask training, but inspectors saw that masks were not always covering the nose and were slipping down. This could reduce the protection intended by the masks.
“Staff had received training in PPE, however, they were not ensuring their masks were fitted correctly over their nose, which led to them slipping down.” from the report
Policies needed updating
needs fixingThe infection-control and visitors' policies did not fully reflect the arrangements in the home. Inspectors said the provider needed to address this shortfall.
“The Infection control and visitors' policies needed to be more personalised to reflect the systems in place at the service.” from the report
- 01What has been done to make sure staff wear masks correctly over their noses?
- 02How do managers check that masks continue to be fitted correctly during shifts?
- 03Have the infection-control and visitors' policies now been updated to reflect the home's arrangements?
- 04How are residents and staff being supported with COVID-19 testing and vaccination?
- 05What measures are in place if COVID-19 creates staffing pressures?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19 staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated and the other question ratings were not given. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 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, February 2020
Hilton House rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with more work needed on end-of-life planning.
This was an unannounced, planned inspection on 6 December 2019. One inspector spoke with four people and three staff, observed care, and reviewed care, medicine, recruitment, training and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. People told inspectors they felt safe, listened to and respected. Staff knew people's needs and supported their choices, independence, activities and healthcare.
The report makes one recommendation. The home had discussed end-of-life preferences with only one person, so inspectors said it should explore this subject more fully with everyone.
Safe support
The home used individual risk assessments and behaviour support plans. Staff were trained to support people safely and inspectors observed correct techniques.
“Each person had risk assessments specific to their individual needs such as weight fluctuation, oral hygiene and managing menstruation.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff understood how people communicated, including through gestures and body language. They respected privacy, dignity and personal choices.
“People were treated with dignity and respect.” from the report
Choice and independence
People helped write and review their care plans and were supported to pursue goals, attend college, manage money and take part in activities.
“People were supported to achieve goals that they had set for themselves and maintain as much control over their choices as possible.” from the report
Good communication support
The home used communication plans, pictorial information and communication passports to help people understand and express themselves.
“People had communication passports in place that they could take with them when they needed to use other healthcare services to enable them to communicate effectively.” from the report
Quality oversight
The home had quality checks, gathered views from people and relatives, and worked with healthcare professionals and other organisations.
“The registered manager had a quality monitoring system in place to ensure that the quality and safety of the home was regularly reviewed, and improvements made where needed.” from the report
End-of-life planning
needs fixingInspectors found that end-of-life preferences had been discussed with only one person. They recommended exploring this with people in more detail and taking appropriate action.
“We recommend the service review best practice for supporting people living with learning disabilities and mental health problems to identify their end of life preferences and take the appropriate action.” from the report
- 01How do you now help each person discuss and record their end-of-life preferences?
- 02What happened after the planned end-of-life care training in January?
- 03How will you support my relative's specific communication needs, including during healthcare appointments?
- 04How do you make sure there are enough staff for community activities when plans change?
- 05How are people involved in reviewing their care and changing the support they receive?
This was an unannounced inspection of the care home covering all five CQC questions, with ratings compared with the previous Good inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 February 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 Hilton House
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 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
35 live-in carers within about an hour of Essex
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. 25 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums life.”
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.