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.
What inspectors found, May 2019
Hilton House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care across all five areas.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 23 March 2019. One inspector spoke with both people living in the home, staff and the registered manager. They observed care and checked care records, medicines, staffing, training, complaints, safety records and management checks.
The home was supporting two people and could accommodate three. Inspectors found effective safeguarding, safe medicine systems, suitable staffing and a clean environment. People received support that respected their privacy, choices and independence.
Care plans were detailed and reviewed with people and relatives where possible. People had regular activities, including outings and holidays, and their health needs were met. The manager was described as approachable, and audits and meetings were used to monitor and improve the service.
All five CQC areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The home had also been rated Good at the previous inspection, published on 9 February 2016.
People felt safe
People said they were safe, and staff knew how to report suspected abuse and seek help if concerns were not acted on.
“People told us they were safe at Hilton House.” from the report
Respectful support
Staff knew people's preferences and supported their dignity, privacy, independence and involvement in decisions.
“From our observations it was clear staff knew people very well and were aware of their preferences and used this knowledge when supporting them.” from the report
Health support
The home supported people to attend healthcare appointments, kept records of outcomes and used Hospital Passports to share important information.
“People had annual health checks and people were screened for health conditions that may not present any symptoms in the early stages.” from the report
Activities and choice
People were supported to have active lives, with activities and outings available every day, including shopping, meals out and holidays.
“Activities were provided to people seven days a week and at all times of day including the evenings.” from the report
Good oversight
The manager carried out regular checks and involved people, relatives and staff in reviewing and improving the service.
“Regular checks and audits were completed by the registered manager to ensure people were safe and were happy with the service they received.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you assess and review my relative's needs, preferences and personal goals?
- 02What activities and outings would be available for my relative, and how would they choose what to do?
- 03How would you support my relative's healthcare appointments and record the outcomes?
- 04How do you check that medicines are given safely and that staff remain trained to administer them?
- 05How would you involve me and my relative in care reviews and decisions?
This was an unannounced scheduled inspection covering all five CQC questions, including both the premises and the care provided; two people were living in the home at the time. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 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, November 2016
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some records needing improvement.
Inspectors visited the home without warning on 9 August 2016. They spoke with all three people living there, relatives, health professionals, the manager and care staff. They observed daily life and checked care plans, medicines records, staff files, training records and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People were supported by enough staff who knew them well. Inspectors found that people were treated kindly, involved in decisions, supported to stay independent and helped to take part in activities they enjoyed.
There were a few recording issues. One staff recruitment file did not fully record the checks and actions taken. Records for medicine competency assessments for existing staff were still being developed. Inspectors found evidence that suitable actions had been taken, and these issues did not change the overall Good rating.
Kind and respectful care
People told inspectors that staff were kind and caring. Staff respected privacy, dignity and individual preferences.
“People told us that staff were kind and caring and treated them with dignity and respect.” from the report
Personal choice
People were involved in planning their care and making daily decisions. Care plans reflected their wishes, goals and independence.
“People were empowered to contribute to all planning of their care.” from the report
Safe staffing
People, relatives and staff said there were enough staff. The home used its own staff to cover absences so people had continuity.
“Any absences are covered by staff employed by the service. We don't use agency staff as people need continuity.” from the report
Good management checks
The manager used audits, feedback and outside checks to monitor the service and make improvements.
“There were effective quality assurance systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service.” from the report
Recruitment records
minorOne staff recruitment file did not fully record the recruitment process. Inspectors saw evidence that suitable action had been taken, but the record itself was incomplete.
“on one staff recruitment file the process had not been fully recorded.” from the report
Competency records
minorRecords for medicine competency assessments for existing staff were still being developed. The report found that medicines were being managed safely at the inspection.
“The registered manager advised us that records for medicine competency assessments were currently being developed for existing staff.” from the report
- 01Have the incomplete staff recruitment records now been corrected, and are all pre-employment checks recorded fully?
- 02Are medicine competency assessments now completed and recorded for every staff member who administers medicines?
- 03How are people's care plans reviewed when their preferences, goals or health needs change?
- 04How are people and relatives involved in feedback, care planning and decisions about the home?
- 05What activities and community links are currently available that match the person's interests?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC areas and the overall quality of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 November 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 Hilton House
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 November 2010.
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 Wolverhampton
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 £950 to £1,230 a week. 89 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“Knowing Mum was in Corina's care made an enormous difference to us and we knew she was in safe hands.”
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.