Hillside Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained the same. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 72 (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 had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

The provider understood their role to record accidents and incidents, and how to reduce the risk of these happening again. There were systems in place, including an accident and incident reporting policy and procedure, and staff knew how to record incidents. Due to the small number of recent accidents and incidents, the provider had not completed a detailed analysis specifically for the service, however, they had looked at ways to improve the service based on incidents which had occurred in other care homes operated by the provider. The registered manager told us they regularly spoke with similar providers to look at lessons which could be learnt, and we saw staff supervision records which included discussions on lessons learnt. The provider maintained a tracker to monitor these and ensure they were reported to the local authority and other partners where appropriate.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

We saw referrals were made to ensure safe transitions such as to the community team for people with a learning disability. There was a business continuity plan in place which included information on what to do in the event of an emergency, such as contact details of suppliers and arrangements with other services in case alternative temporary accommodation was required. A healthcare professional told us, “Our reviews include some documentation and that is always completed and sent to us, and staff understand how to complete documents such as a [specific] assessment.”

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

People and their relatives told us they felt safe and that staff treated them with respect. One relative told us, “I think he’s very safe there.” Another relative commented, “They keep [person] safe.”

Staff completed training for safeguarding and whistleblowing, and there was a safeguarding policy and procedure in place. They told us they knew how to recognise potential signs of abuse and how to report these internally and externally. One member of staff told us, “[Abuse can be] using abusive words and deprivation and depriving them of their routine. I have to report to my shift leader or deputy manager or call the police.”

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. The provider understood their responsibility in relation to safeguarding people’s rights and what would constitute a restrictive practice. Applications were submitted to the local authority, and we saw that applications had considered the least restrictive ways and involved relevant partners in the decision-making process.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

People and their relatives told us staff managed risks in relation to their care well. One relative told us, “They meet all his needs. We have no worries or concerns or concerns about him.”

Staff understood how to reduce risks in relation to people’s care by involving them and considering how to take positive risks which improved people’s quality of life. People’s care records included information on how specific risks. We saw that relevant healthcare professionals had provided instructions and care records showed these were followed by staff. For example, in relation to the precautions to be taken when going to local shops.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

The registered manager undertook regular checks of the environment and worked with external partners to make the service safer. People and their relatives told us the environment people lived in was safe. We saw there were systems in place to ensure the environment and equipment were safe, such as fire safety equipment checks, electrical equipment checks, food safety and environmental checks.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

People and their relatives told us there were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs. One relative told us, “I think it’s adequate.” Another relative commented in relation to staff taking time to get to know people “They sit and talk.” Staff told us there were enough of them and that they had time to get to know people. One member of staff told us in relation to staffing, “It’s ideal.”

We observed there were sufficient staff throughout the assessment and staff were knowledgeable about people’s needs. Staff had completed training to undertake their role and had received regular supervisions. Staff rosters showed a regular staff team which meant there was continuity of care for people.

Staff were recruited safely to the service. This included requesting and receiving references from previous employers, right-to-work documentation and Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks. DBS checks are carried out to confirm whether prospective new staff had a criminal record or were barred from working with people at the time.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

People and their relatives told us the environment was clean and staff understood their responsibilities in relation to infection control. Staff cleaned the environment regularly and told us they had sufficient personal protective equipment to undertake tasks. We observed staff following infection prevention and control (IPC) procedures and the responsibilities were clearly laid out. Comments from relatives included, “It’s spotless.”

The provider had appropriate policies in place, undertook regular IPC checks of the environment and equipment, and they understood their responsibilities to report infection outbreaks to the relevant health authorities.

The provider generally made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. However, we identified there were some areas for improvement in relation to adequate recordkeeping of medicines records. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

People received their medicines as prescribed however we identified some shortfalls in relation to medicines records. For example, it was not always clear from records whether some topical medicines (those applied to the skin) were still in use and whether a medicine was administered once per day. We subsequently received information which indicated that staff were following people’s wishes, but this was not always clearly recorded. Records included all other relevant information and the registered manager showed us they had addressed the areas we identified.

People and their relatives told us people received their medicines in a safe way. They told us staff supported them to reduce their use of medicines where they wanted to do this.

There was a medicines policy in place and staff had received training and competency checks prior to administering medicines. The provider understood their responsibilities in relation to managing medicines alerts.