You are here

Hilldales Residential Care Home Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 16 July 2013
Date of Publication: 21 August 2013
Inspection Report published 21 August 2013 PDF

People should get safe and appropriate care that meets their needs and supports their rights (outcome 4)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Experience effective, safe and appropriate care, treatment and support that meets their needs and protects their rights.

How this check was done

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 16 July 2013, checked how people were cared for at each stage of their treatment and care and talked with people who use the service. We talked with staff and reviewed information sent to us by commissioners of services.

We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

Our judgement

People experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights.

Reasons for our judgement

People we spoke with gave a varied view of their experience of living at the service. One person told us they were most unhappy. We heard they had been drinking heavily outside of the home and this affected their mental well- being. Most people said they were treated well by staff. Comments included ''You couldn't get a better bunch, most caring and very good.'' Another person told us ''I don't want to be here, but the staff are very good. They are all kind and do their best.''

We looked at four care plans in some detail. We saw the funding authority assessment and care plan had been used to develop a care plan which included what the person could do for themselves and what staff needed to support them with. This showed people’s needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. We saw plans were reviewed monthly by the key worker and a summary was included about how the person had been for that month.

Plans included details about past history, what had brought them to live at the service and for some, what triggers there were for any behaviour that was challenging. This included what staff should to do calm the person or a situation.

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people’s safety and welfare. We saw for example risk assessments in place for safe moving and handling, medication management and dealing with aggressive behaviours. People we spoke with said they were asked their views, but were not involved in their care plan records, or did nt wish to be involved. When we spoke to a staff member about this, they said they checked how things were going with their key people on an informal basis, then included the detail in the summary of the monthly reviews.

There were arrangements in place to deal with foreseeable emergencies. Each care plan had a photo and detailed description of the person, which could be given to emergency service if needed. We heard how the manager had met with a senior police officer to explain what the service offered to people and how they worked to encourage people to stay off drinking, but this was not always successful. We saw a letter from the police to officers in the area to say if the staff called for police support, they must respond quickly as staff would only call in an emergency situation. We heard how people who were vulnerable and would wander off and get lost were often known by the police and they would call the home if they saw people wandering out of the local vicinity.

The Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were only used when it was considered to be in the person's best interest. This safeguard had not been used for people, but the manager was aware that any concerns about restrictions must be discussed with people, their care managers and if necessary referred onto the assessment team who deal with DoLS.