Hillbrow Residential Care Home Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People told us staff understood their needs well, and relatives confirmed they were fully involved in assessment and review processes. One relative said, “The manager and carers have kept the nucleus of the home exactly the same… it’s seamless,” reflecting confidence in how needs were understood and met.

Care plans reviewed demonstrated person‑centred assessments. For example, assessments for people living with Parkinson’s disease or requiring modified diets clearly explained risks and specific support strategies to guide staff practice.

Care plans showed regular reviews with evidence of timely updates following changes, including GP consultations, speech and language recommendations, and occupational therapist input. Overall, people’s needs were assessed holistically, using recognised tools for nutrition, pressure ulcer prevention, continence, assessments and personal evacuation plans. This supported safe, well‑coordinated care delivery.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

People received care and treatment that followed best practice and recognised clinical guidance. Staff demonstrated strong understanding of people’s long‑term health conditions and used evidence‑based approaches, including external professional guidance for modified diets, pain management plans, and recommendations for equipment.

We saw medicine support aligned with current clinical advice, with timely reviews by GPs and clear documentation showing when medicines had been reduced to improve people’s alertness or wellbeing.

Staff used recognised tools to monitor risks and outcomes, and records confirmed appropriate liaison with external professionals such as community nurses, mental health teams, and therapy services.

People told us their care was effective, with 1 person commenting, “It’s so much better here… they didn’t know anything before (previous placement) but here they understand my conditions.” Observations showed staff delivering care at a pace that respected people’s needs, offering alternatives and supporting people sensitively when they were unwell. Care was delivered consistently and aligned with evidence‑based practice and supported positive outcomes.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

People benefited from good multidisciplinary working, which ensured their health and care needs were met in a coordinated way. External professionals confirmed the service communicated effectively and followed recommendations promptly, with one stating they had “no issues with the care and communication.”

Staff demonstrated a strong knowledge of when to escalate concerns, and records showed appropriate GP contact, and referrals to several externa professionals including the involvement of mental health services when required.

Daily handovers, regular reviews, and effective liaison with visiting professionals ensured information was shared consistently. People recognised this joined‑up approach; one person told us, “They always check my eyes and make my appointments.”

Staff described positive working relationships, and observations showed care staff, kitchen and housekeeping staff, wellbeing coordinators and management working together to support people’s daily routines.

Kitchen staff had detailed knowledge of dietary preferences and medical requirements, showing effective communication across departments. Overall, staff and external partners worked cohesively, supporting timely decision‑making and positive health outcomes for people living at the home.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People were encouraged to maintain their health, mobility and interests. Staff were alert to emerging health issues such as sore mouths, constipation or changes in appetite, and acted quickly by contacting GPs or arranging referrals.

Feedback from health professionals was positive about how the staff worked with them and outcomes for people. Comments included, “I feel that the Hillbrow team do work well with us” and “Overall my experience of working with Hillbrow is positive and they are providing good care for the patients in their care.”

People expressed confidence in how their health needs were identified and acted upon, with comments such as “I see my GP whenever I need to and staff take great care of me.”

Dietary needs were monitored, including modified diets, soft and bite‑sized options, and preferences recorded on arrival. One person explained that after a hospital stay, kitchen staff ensured they received a soft diet to help their recovery, saying, “They made sure I had a soft diet… it helped me recover.” Another person said, “The cooks are very good here, they do look after me very well,” reflecting how nutrition and hydration support was adjusted based on professional recommendations.

People had access to call bells, including people in their bedrooms. They said this helped them feel safe and supported. The service fostered healthy routines, independence where possible, and meaningful engagement that promoted wellbeing and quality of life.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

The provider monitored people’s progress through regular reviews, audits, and outcome tracking, which informed ongoing improvements. Monthly accident and incident analysis was completed and showed low levels of serious injury, with clear evidence of learning such as updating risk assessments and reinforcing staff guidance.

Call bell audits demonstrated response times typically between 4 and 7 minutes, and although some people reported occasional waits over 10 minutes, staffing had been increased to address morning peak demand.

Care plans showed measurable improvements, such as weight stabilisation, better pain management and effective support for people experiencing distress or mental health needs. The activity wellbeing programme supported positive emotional outcomes, with records showing strong participation and personalised engagement.

Staff induction, ongoing training compliance and competency checks contributed to consistent care delivery. Relatives and external professionals highlighted improved outcomes, stating people were kept safe, well monitored and supported to maintain their independence.

The provider’s systems identified gaps, such as delays in routine fire safety checks and actions were underway to strengthen oversight, demonstrating a commitment to continuous improvement.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

People’s rights were upheld through appropriate use of mental capacity assessments and best‑interest processes. Assessments were decision‑specific and clearly documented within care plans.

Staff demonstrated an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA), and people who could make their own decisions were supported to do so, including routine choices about meals, activities and personal care.

Where people lacked capacity for more complex decisions, relatives and those with Power of Attorney were involved appropriately. One relative described participating in a best‑interest decision regarding medication refusal, stating, “It’s all about quality of life,” and confirming covert administration would not be used.

People who wished to decline treatment, such as do not resuscitate decisions or preferences about hospital admission, had these clearly recorded and respected.

Staff knew how to check consent before providing support, and interactions we observed were patient, respectful and involved explanation and reassurance.

People told us they felt listened to and that staff respected their choices. The provider ensured people’s freedoms and rights were upheld in line with legislation and best practice.