Hillside Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

This service scored 71 (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 shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

People and their relatives told us there was a positive culture at the service. One relative told us, “It’s spotless and they’re very welcoming and very entertaining.” Another relative said, “[Person] seems to be content, and the home goes out of its way to accommodate our requests as well.”

Staff understood the vision for the service; they told us there was a positive culture, and they felt included in the running of the service. One member of staff told us, “We try to give them that homely environment.” The registered manager commented, “It’s their home, it’s their house.” Another member of staff said, “The atmosphere is good.”

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

People and their relatives told us the service was managed by capable, transparent and compassionate leaders. One relative told us, “We are confident he’s well looked after. We’ve never had any problems. They always dealt with them. If anything, they’ve told us about the problems and they’ve dealt with them as well.” Another relative said, “They say to discuss any worries with them, I can also talk to [registered manager] as well.”

Staff told us the service was managed by leaders who had the skills, knowledge and experience to lead them effectively. One member of staff told us, “[I feel] supported by [registered manager] for sure.”

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

People, their relatives and staff told us they felt able to speak up if they had a concern. A relative told us, “[Registered manager] is friendly and I’m able to talk anything and everything with her.” A member of staff told us, “I speak up when we have concerns about the service. We are encouraged to speak up as well by the management.” The registered manager told us they were available anytime and they encouraged everyone to speak up. Feedback received from stakeholders confirmed this.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

Records showed that staff had completed equality and diversity training online and face-to-face. They told us there was an inclusive culture at the service and that they felt valued by the registered manager.

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and generally good governance across the service. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate. However, there were some areas of improvement which we identified during this assessment.

The provider undertook various audits and whilst these were generally effective in identifying shortfalls, there were some areas, such as medicines management and environmental audits, which did not follow up on identified areas to ensure action was taken consistently. The registered manager acknowledged this and improved their audits in response to our assessment. Whilst the impact on people’s care was minimal, these areas needed to be addressed to ensure consistently good oversight of the service. We found the registered manager was motivated to make the improvements required. As part of the assessment, we signposted the registered manager to support in these areas.

Other audits were effective in addressing shortfalls and ensuring staff knew people well. For example, the registered manager regularly undertook knowledge tests with staff to ensure they knew people’s needs and preferences.

Staff told us there was a governance structure in place and they knew who to approach if they were unsure on how best to support people or any other aspects of their role. One member of staff told us, “I can go to [provider]. They are supporting me.”
 

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.

Partners told us the service worked well with them and took feedback on board. Staff effectively shared information with partners. The provider understood the importance of working collaboratively and we saw from care records that external partners had been involved in people’s care. One partner told us, “Hillside support [person] to attend family occasions and I have found their service to provide good person-centred care.”

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contributed to safe, effective practice and research.

There was a culture of learning and improvement at the service. Staff regularly discussed people’s needs and whether there were ways to improve their quality of life and their independence. One member of staff told us, “We talk about how we take care of the residents and if there’s anything we need to fix. If staff have any concerns or ideas to contribute.” A visiting healthcare professional told us, “They are always welcoming when I visit and I never have trouble arranging appointments.”

The registered manager kept their knowledge updated by engaging with other providers and external training providers. They acknowledged that they could improve this and had a plan to do so. Where we highlighted areas of improvement during this assessment, the registered manager actively listened to these and provided us with evidence that the areas had been addressed.