CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Hilton Park - Oaklands
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control, including visitors, admissions, testing, protective equipment, cleaning, ventilation and outbreak management.
- 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, May 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection prevention and control arrangements at Hilton Park - Oaklands.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 5 May 2021. It looked at infection prevention and control because of COVID-19. The home was not given an overall quality rating.
Inspectors were assured that the home managed visitors, social distancing, shielding, admissions, testing, protective equipment and outbreaks safely. They also found that the infection control policy was up to date and that visits were being supported in line with guidance.
The building was clean and free from clutter, with windows opened for ventilation. Staff had infection control training, two dedicated infection control leads, and checks were made on handwashing and use of protective equipment.
The home supported family contact through video calls and arranged visits by appointment. People were also being supported to go into the community again. The inspection did not rate caring, effective, responsive or well-led care.
Visitor safety
Visitors had temperature checks, rapid COVID-19 tests, health declarations and protective equipment. Visits were arranged by appointment and could take place in people's rooms or in the garden.
“All visitors complied with the providers visiting policy.” from the report
Infection control arrangements
The home had dedicated infection control leads, staff training and checks on handwashing and protective equipment. Staff used separate rooms to put on and remove protective equipment.
“The service had two dedicated infection control leads.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the building clean and free from clutter. Windows were opened to improve ventilation.
“The building was clean and free from clutter.” from the report
Keeping people connected
Staff helped people use tablets to video call relatives and friends. The home had bought new tablets for this purpose.
“Staff also helped people to use computer tablets to video call their family and friends to promote their social well-being.” from the report
Community access
People were being supported to go into the community again after restrictions linked to the COVID-19 pandemic.
“During our visit we also saw people being supported into the community for the first time since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visits arranged now, and what checks or protective equipment are currently required?
- 02How do you test people living here and staff, and how would you manage an infection outbreak?
- 03How often are staff observed washing their hands and using protective equipment?
- 04How will my relative keep in contact with family if in-person visits are restricted?
- 05What are the home's current ratings for caring, effective, responsive and well-led care?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control under the Safe question only; the service was inspected but not rated overall. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 May 2021 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 2019
Hilton Park - Oaklands was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some safeguarding reporting improvements already under way.
This was an unannounced, planned inspection. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and outside professionals. They observed care and reviewed care records, incident reports, complaints and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, good training and kind care. People were involved in decisions, had personalised care plans and could join a range of activities.
The report also records some issues being addressed. The local authority had raised concerns about safeguarding referrals, so extra training and checks were introduced. A registered manager had recently left, and an interim manager was in place while recruitment took place. The previous inspection rating was also Good.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors found that staff respected privacy, dignity and independence.
“Staff fully respected and promoted people's privacy, dignity and independence.” from the report
Safe medicines and infection control
Staff were trained and checked as competent to give medicines. Inspectors found good infection control practice and a clean home.
“The home was clean, tidy and smelled pleasant when we visited.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people's preferences and gave staff guidance about their needs. People and relatives were involved in care reviews.
“People had care plans in place, which were personalised and written in detail.” from the report
Activities and social links
The home offered varied activities, including a dementia choir, trips and visits from children and a mother and baby music group.
“There was a full timetable of activities offered.” from the report
Safeguarding referrals
needs fixingThe local authority had identified concerns about how safeguarding referrals were reported and recorded. The home had introduced specific training, extra support plans and additional audits.
“The Local Authority had identified concerns regarding the reporting of safeguarding and the content including in the safeguarding referrals.” from the report
Meal-time staffing
minorRelatives said more staff would be helpful during meals. The manager said this was considered in the staffing tool and meal-time observations were carried out.
“Relatives told us they felt that more staff would be beneficial during meal times.” from the report
Registered manager vacancy
minorThe registered manager had left shortly before the inspection. An interim manager was in place while interviews were being held for the role.
“The registered manager had recently left the service.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to safeguarding referral recording and reporting since this inspection?
- 02Who is currently managing the home, and when do you expect to appoint a registered manager?
- 03How many staff are scheduled during meal times, and how do you check that this is enough?
- 04How are residents and relatives involved in reviewing and updating care plans?
- 05Which activities are available for someone with my relative's interests, communication needs and health conditions?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, with the overall and all five individual ratings assessed as Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 November 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 Hilton Park - Oaklands
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 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
17 live-in carers within about an hour of Cambridgeshire
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 £1,200 a week. 14 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
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.