Hilton House

We found the following examples of good practice.

Flexible, safe, visiting arrangements were in place to support people in keeping in contact with their friends and relatives.

Staff supported people to go out safely and continue activities they enjoy. As part of the support, staff were putting together an ‘easy to read’ information ‘wall’. Staff had used drawings and words to provide information about COVID-19, and how to keep safe.

Systems were in place to minimise the risk / detect COVID-19 coming into the service. This included regular testing for staff and people living in the service as well as supporting people to access the COVID-19 vaccination programme.

Staff felt supported by the management, who had ensured they had access to enough personal protective equipment to safely carry out their role.

Hilton House is a care home registered to provide care and support for up to 10 people of all ages who have learning disabilities and mental health needs. The home is set out over two floors with a large outdoor area.

The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

We have made a recommendation about exploring end of life care with people in more detail.

People felt safe living in the home and there were processes in place to protect people and their belongings. Staff knew how to protect people from abuse and where to escalate concerns if they needed to. There were systems in place to assess risks to people’s health and wellbeing which staff were aware of for each person. People’s medicines were managed safely.

Staff received training and development to be able to support people safely. Staff said that they had also been encouraged to undertake qualifications to develop them further in their roles. Staff had received training specific to some of the conditions relevant to people who lived in the home and some staff had gone on to do more advanced courses. People received support to maintain a balanced diet and dieticians were asked for guidance when needed.

There was a calm atmosphere in the home and staff responded to people in a kind and caring manner. Staff knew people well and were able to communicate with people individually based on their abilities. People were involved in making decisions about their care and support and felt listened to. People had their privacy and dignity protected and their choices respected.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People told us that they like the Registered Manager and found them approachable. People and staff said they felt listened to and felt involved in the service. Systems where in place to monitor the quality of the service and drive improvement. The registered manager worked with other healthcare organisations to keep up to date with best practice.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

The last rating for this service was Good (published 11 April 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

At our last inspection we found breaches of Regulations 9, 11, 12 and 17 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. We asked the provider to take action to make improvements in how medicines were managed, the content of care records, supporting people with choice and the systems for ensuring the safety and quality of the service. At this inspection we found that appropriate action had been taken to address these issues.

The service is registered to provide care and support for up to 10 people of all ages who have learning disabilities and mental health needs. On the day of our inspection there were seven people living in the service.

The service had a registered manager who was also the provider. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Staff had been trained in safeguarding people from abuse. They demonstrated that they understood the signs of abuse and how to safeguard the people. Staff said they felt confident that the registered manager would take appropriate action to adequately protect people.

There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people's needs. Staffing levels were determined by looking at people's needs and activities including appointments. Risks to people were assessed and managed appropriately to ensure that people's health and well-being were promoted. Action plans to manage risks were in place and staff followed them.

People received their medicines safely and medicines were managed in line with procedures. Medicines were administered to people appropriately, clear records were maintained and medicines were stored safely.

People's choices and decisions were respected. People made decisions about their day-to-day care and support and were actively involved in their care planning. The service understood their responsibility under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

Staff understood people's needs and treated them with respect, kindness and dignity. Staff communicated with people in the way they understood. People's individual care needs had been assessed and their support planned and delivered in accordance to their wishes. People's needs and progress were reviewed regularly with the person to ensure it continued to meet their needs.

People were encouraged to follow their interests and develop skills. People participated in a variety of activities within the service and the wider community. These included attending college and other social activities.

The service held regular meetings with people and staff to gather their views about the service provided and to consult with them about various matters. People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy with the service. There were systems in place to monitor and assess the quality of service provided.

There were eight people living in the service when we inspected on 31 January 2016. This was an unannounced inspection.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons.’ Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Improvements were needed in how the staffing levels were assessed in the service to ensure people’s needs were met. Improvements were needed in the staff rota to show the actual times that staff worked. Appropriate recruitment checks were made to make sure that staff were of good character and able to work in the service. Staff were trained and supported to meet the needs of the people who used the service.

Improvements were needed in the service’s safe management of medicines to ensure that people were protected.

Improvements were needed in the application of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People were provided with a choice of meals, improvements were needed in how staff were guided to meet people's specific dietary requirements. People were supported to see, when needed, health and social care professionals to make sure they received appropriate care and treatment.

Staff had good relationships with people who used the service and were attentive to their needs. People, or their representatives, were involved in making decisions about their care and support.

Improvements were needed in how people’s care was planned and how staff were provided guidance on how people’s needs were met in care plans.

A complaints procedure was in place, however this was not displayed in the service and was not provided in an accessible format to support people to raise concerns. People’s views about the service were sought in meetings and satisfaction questionnaires.

The service did not have a robust quality assurance system to independently identify shortfalls and to continually improve. This includes shortfalls identified in the environment, records and governance.

Prior to our inspection visit we received information of concern from other professionals. When their investigations are complete we will make a decision on our regulatory action. If we do take further action we will report on this.

We found of breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we have told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

We found that care plans and risk assessments were in place and accurately reflected the needs of the people who used the service. We found that people were supported to attend college and pursue their interests in the community.

Medicines were received, stored and disposed of in line with current guidance. We saw that people received their medication in a timely way and were given information about the medicines they were taking.

The service was undergoing major building work when we conducted this inspection but appropriate health and safety measures were in place to ensure people's safety. The building and grounds were clean and well maintained and fit for purpose.

Staff received an induction on commencement of employment with the service and there were regular staff meetings and supervisions. We saw that staff were supported to undertake further training.