Hillbrow Residential Care Home Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Outstanding. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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 were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People experienced care that reflected their individual needs, preferences, and routines. Staff knew people well and used this knowledge to deliver support that was meaningful and personal to them.

People described Hillbrow as “a happy place… the staff are very good” and told us staff understood their likes and dislikes. We saw personalised bedrooms and staff adjusting meals to suit individual preferences, such as offering alternatives when someone struggled to eat a planned dish.

Staff took time to understand people’s histories and what mattered to them. For example, one person preferred their bed facing a window for natural light, and this was respected. Relatives also told us staff were attentive and showed patience, kindness, and genuine interest in each person they supported.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The provider ensured care was coordinated, consistent, and supported by effective communication within the team and with external professionals. Care plans were detailed, regularly reviewed, and contained clear guidance on people’s needs.

People told us staff knew their routines, and feedback showed staff responded promptly to health changes. There was good partnership working with GPs, district nurses, occupational therapy and speech and language therapy. Professionals reported confidence in the service, saying staff followed clinical recommendations, including modified diets and equipment needs.

Call bell audits and staffing adjustments demonstrated the provider monitored how well care was delivered and took steps to maintain continuity during busy times.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People and relatives received clear, timely information that helped them understand their care, treatment and support. Information in communal areas was accessible and included menus, activities, complaints processes, and safety certifications.

Staff explained medicines, meals and care tasks in ways people understood. People told us they were kept informed about health appointments and changes in treatment. Relatives said staff communicated well and contacted them quickly if concerns arose. The availability of accessible signage, photos, and clear visual cues supported people living with dementia.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The provider encouraged people and relatives to share their views and acted when they raised concerns or preferences. People told us staff listened to them and respected their choices, and staff gently encouraged involvement in decisions about day-to-day life.

Residents’ meetings took place twice a year, and staff demonstrated they acted on feedback, for example, responding to concerns about routines or preferences for support. One person told us “They do everything for me… I’ve got no complaints”, while another relative described the team as “fantastic… very caring” and praised how staff responded when their family member became distressed or refused medicines.

Where issues were raised, the manager met with families quickly and implemented agreed plans.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The provider ensured people had fair access to care, support, activities and community involvement. Activities were varied, inclusive, and adapted so that people with different abilities or interests could participate.

Staff ensured that people who preferred to stay in their rooms still received engagement, such as one‑to‑one visits, reading, music and conversation.

People could access health professionals without delay. Referrals to specialists, such as physiotherapy and the mental health team, were made promptly and care plans updated to reflect recommendations.

Staff adapted support where mobility, communication or cognitive needs affected access. People told us they were supported to attend appointments and enjoy community outings, with efforts made to ensure everyone had equal opportunities to participate.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

People received consistent, compassionate care regardless of their needs, background, or level of independence. Feedback across the service showed people felt safe, respected, and valued. Comments such as “the staff are lovely… absolute gems” and “it’s a home from home” were common across different people and relatives.

Outcomes were positive, with people feeling comfortable, supported and involved in their care. Care plans documented what mattered to each person, including preferences, routines and personal histories.

Staffing was adjusted to support people with higher physical needs and ensure safe and equitable care. Minor delays in call bell responses were acknowledged and monitored to ensure these did not affect people’s experience.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

The provider enabled people and families to plan for health changes, treatments and end‑of‑life preferences. People’s wish regarding their end of their life care were discussed with them and recorded where people felt able to talk about this sensitive subject.

People had mental capacity assessments on file, and best interest decisions involved families and those with power of attorney. Documents such as ‘do not resuscitate’ forms and recommended summary plans for emergency care were current and understood by staff.

Relatives confirmed discussions were held at the right time and handled sensitively. Staff were knowledgeable about people’s preferences, including avoiding hospital admissions where appropriate.

Care plans provided structured guidance to support people as their needs changed, and staff were aware of how to escalate concerns.