Archived: Hillside

We found that people's consent was obtained before care was delivered and staff acted in accordance with their wishes. Where people did not have the capacity to consent we found the provider acted in accordance with legal requirements.

We found that people's care needs were assessed and their care and treatment was planned. Where necessary, external healthcare professionals had been consulted about people's care needs.

We saw that there were effective systems in place to manage infection control appropriately.

We found that before staff commenced work sufficient checks were undertaken to ensure they were of good character and suitably skilled, qualified and experienced to deliver care and support safely.

The provider had a robust complaints procedure in place and people had been made aware of the complaints procedure in a format that met their needs. Staff told us how they would deal with complaints in line with the provider's complaints policy.

We identified shortfalls in the maintenance of the premises and surrounding grounds, which lead to the health, welfare and safety of people staff and visitors being put at risk.

We last visited the service on 22 May 2012. We told the provider that they were not meeting this essential standard. Our written judgement stated, 'The provider did not protect people from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment by maintaining accurate records'.

In response to our report, the provider wrote to us and told us what actions they were going to take to improve.

At this inspection we found that records related to the people's care and treatment and also health and safety checks, were now appropriately maintained.