CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Hilton Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe. Staff recruitment, staffing levels, medicines, infection control and incident reporting were found to be safe, although some risk and medicines records were updated after the inspection.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs, choices and health conditions were assessed and reviewed. Staff were trained and supervised, people received help with healthcare and food, and the home followed the Mental Capacity Act.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not covered by this focused inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not covered by this focused inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager was closely involved in the home, audits took place and staff, relatives and professionals gave positive feedback. Outstanding paperwork from the COVID-19 period was being updated.
What inspectors found, September 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and well-managed care, with some records and checks updated after the visit.
This was an unannounced, focused inspection on 17 August 2022. One inspector visited the home, an expert by experience contacted relatives, and inspectors spoke with residents, staff and a relative. They also checked care records, recruitment files, medicines, accidents, training and building safety.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective and Well-led. People and relatives said staff were kind and that people felt safe. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, suitable training, safe medicines management, clean surroundings and person-centred care.
Some issues were found but were dealt with after the visit. Two risk assessments needed more detail, the fire risk assessment was due for renewal, and some medicines competency checks were overdue. The report says these matters were completed or updated by the time it was written.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives consistently described staff as kind, caring and patient. Inspectors saw that people were treated with dignity and respect.
“People and their relatives told us the staff were kind, caring and they felt safe at the service.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found there were enough staff to meet people's needs. Safe recruitment checks were completed before staff started work.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs and the registered manager used bank staff in the event of an emergency.” from the report
Person-centred support
Care plans reflected people's needs, preferences and cultural requirements. People were supported to make choices and receive care in the least restrictive way.
“The service promoted person-centred care which achieved good outcomes for people.” from the report
Good leadership
The manager was hands-on, available to staff and involved in daily care. Audits covered medicines, hygiene, cleanliness, the environment and fire safety.
“The registered manager provided a hands-on role at the service.” from the report
Clean and infection-controlled home
The home was clean, food was stored safely and infection control arrangements were effective. Visitors were allowed to visit when they wished, subject to infection precautions.
“The care home was kept clean, food was stored safely and hygienically, and there was an effective infection control system in place.” from the report
Some risk assessments needed more detail
needs fixingInspectors found two risk assessments that did not contain enough detail. The missing information was added after the inspection.
“We found two risk assessments which would benefit from additional detailed information.” from the report
Fire assessment renewal was overdue
needs fixingThe fire risk assessment was due for renewal when inspectors visited. It had been renewed and a fire drill completed by the time the report was written.
“The service fire risk assessment was due for renewal.” from the report
Some medicines checks were overdue
needs fixingYearly competency checks had not always been completed for every staff member who gave medicines. The manager completed these after the inspection.
“Yearly checks were not always taking place for all staff, but following the inspection, the registered manager completed these in line with best practice.” from the report
- 01How often are risk assessments reviewed, and how will you make sure they contain enough detail for my relative?
- 02When was the home's latest fire risk assessment completed, and when was the most recent fire drill?
- 03How do you record and check staff competency to give medicines, including yearly checks?
- 04How are my relative's preferences, cultural needs and health conditions recorded and reviewed?
- 05How will you involve me and my relative in resident meetings and decisions about how care is provided?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led only; Caring and Responsive were not assessed, and the previous ratings were carried over. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 September 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, December 2018
Hilton Lodge was rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and person-centred care, with some records still needing improvement.
Inspectors visited unannounced on 13 November 2018. They spoke with people living in the home, visitors, relatives, staff and a health professional. They reviewed care records, staff checks and training, medicines, safety checks and quality audits.
The home had 11 people living there and was registered for up to 13 people, some with long-term mental health needs. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, suitable training and safe medicines management. They also found clean surroundings, safe food storage and systems to reduce infection risks.
People and relatives described staff as kind, patient and respectful. Care records covered people's needs and preferences, and people were supported with activities, family contact, religious visits and end-of-life care. However, one medicines record was incomplete, not all care plans were signed by people, and there was no specific end-of-life care plan.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The home was also rated Good at the previous inspection on 22 February 2016, so its overall rating stayed the same.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives consistently said staff were kind, caring, patient and respectful. Inspectors saw that people's privacy and dignity were supported.
“People were unanimous in their praise of staff and that they were caring, kind and patient.” from the report
Enough staff and safe recruitment
Inspectors found staffing levels met people's needs. Criminal checks and references were completed before staff started work.
“We saw there were enough staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Personalised care
Care records described people's needs, preferences, communication and routines. Staff knew about people's backgrounds and supported their independence.
“Care records were up to date, comprehensive and person-centred.” from the report
Good leadership
The manager was present and involved in the home. Regular audits, meetings and feedback were used to monitor quality.
“There were quality audits to check medicines, hygiene and cleanliness, the environment, fire safety and all care records were up to date.” from the report
Support at the end of life
Inspectors heard that a person had been supported to remain at the home at the end of their life, with family and health professionals involved.
“The registered manager told us they were committed to providing the best end of life care possible to people and enabling people to remain at the service as long as possible.” from the report
Incomplete medicines record
needs fixingOne medicines administration record slot had not been completed the day before the inspection. The medicines stock matched, but the manager said staff would be reminded to report missing entries.
“We found one slot on the MAR had not been completed yesterday for one person but the person was able to say if they had their medicine, and the stocks tallied.” from the report
Care plans not always signed
needs fixingNot all care plans had been signed by the people receiving care. People said their care was delivered as they wanted, but families should ask how agreement is recorded.
“Not all care plans were signed by people, but people told us their care was provided as they liked.” from the report
End-of-life planning
needs fixingThe home did not have a specific end-of-life care plan. It planned to seek advice on developing one and recording discussions with people and families.
“The service did not have a specific end of life care plan in place but planned to get advice on how to develop these” from the report
- 01How do you make sure every medicines administration record is completed and checked each day?
- 02How are care plans agreed with residents and families, and how do you record their agreement or refusal to sign?
- 03Have you now introduced a specific end-of-life care plan, and how are people's wishes discussed and recorded?
- 04How do you make sure residents have a choice of meals, including when they want a wider menu?
- 05What activities and community outings would be available for my relative, and how would these be adapted to their needs?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC areas and the overall rating; the previous inspection on 22 February 2016 was also rated Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 December 2018 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 Lodge
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- September 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 December 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 Barnet
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 £1,300 a week. 83 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“The quality of life that she's given my parents has been priceless. The peace of mind she's given my sisters and I, through a very difficult time, has been invaluable.”
“Folasade is really kind, patient and respectful, has a fantastic sense of humour and such a positive outlook on 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.