• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Hillbrow Residential Home

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

18 Mill Road, Epsom, Surrey, KT17 4AR (01372) 720633

Provided and run by:
Mr & Mrs V Sumessur

All Inspections

9 May 2016

During a routine inspection

Hillbrow Residential Home provides accommodation to a maximum of fourteen people. They provide support to people over the age of sixty five who may be living with the experience of dementia, or mental health conditions. At the time of our inspection 10 people were living at the home, with another two being cared for in hospital.

The premise is presented across two floors with access to the first floor via stairs and stair lift. People’s bedrooms are single occupancy. Communal space consists of a lounge area and dining room. There is a private garden with a patio at the rear of the property.

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.

The home was well decorated and adapted to meet people’s needs. Flooring was smooth and uncluttered to aid people’s mobility needs. The home had a homely feel and reflected the interests and lives of the people who lived there.

The inspection took place on 9 May 2016 and was unannounced.

There was positive feedback about the home and caring nature of staff from people who live there. One person said, “Staff are looking after me alright.” Feedback form a healthcare professional said, “This is a professionally run home with caring staff who are sensitive to and respond to resident’s needs.”

People were safe at Hillbrow Residential Home. There were sufficient staff deployed to meet the needs and preferences of the people that lived there.

Risks of harm to people had been identified and clear plans and guidelines were in place to minimise these risks, without restricting people’s freedom. People were involved in these decisions because staff took the time to explain to them in a way they could understand. Staff understood their duty should they suspect abuse was taking place, including the agencies that needed to be notified, such as the local authority safeguarding team or the police.

The provider had carried out appropriate recruitment checks to ensure staff were suitable to support people in the home. Staff received a comprehensive induction and ongoing training, tailored to the needs of the people they supported.

People received their medicines when they needed them. People were supported to manage their own medicines where possible. Staff managed the medicines in a safe way and were trained in the safe administration of medicines.

In the event of an emergency people would be protected because there were clear procedures in place to evacuate the building. These procedures were regularly discussed with people to ensure they knew how to respond in an emergency. An alternative location for people to stay was also identified in case the home could not be used for a time.

People had the capacity to understand and make decisions about their care and support. The registered manager and staff had a good knowledge of what would need to be done if people did not have the capacity to understand or consent to a decision. They would then follow the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005). An appropriate assessment of people’s ability to make decisions for themselves had been completed. Staff were heard to ask people for their permission before they provided care. People’s human rights were protected because where a person’s capacity around a specific decision had been queried; the registered manager immediately contacted the local authority to discuss an assessment of capacity, and the possible need for a DoLS application.

As people had capacity to make decisions for themselves their liberty had not been restricted to keep them safe. The Staff and management had a good understanding of the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), so if a person’s capacity changed they would know what to do to ensure the person’s rights were protected.

People had enough to eat and drink, and received support from staff where a need had been identified. People were complimentary about the food, after lunch one person said, “That was lovely; I enjoyed that.” Staff had a good understanding of specialist diets that people were on to ensure people could eat and drink safely, and still enjoy their meals.

People were supported to maintain good health as they had access to relevant healthcare professionals when they needed them. When people’s health deteriorated staff responded quickly to help people and made sure they received appropriate treatment. People’s health was seen to improve due to the care and support staff gave.

The staff were kind and caring and treated people with dignity and respect. One person said, “Staff are very good. They’re first class.” Another person said, “I like the staff. I get on very well with them.” Good interactions were seen throughout the day of our inspection, such as staff talking with them and showing interest in what people were doing. People looked relaxed and happy with the staff. People could have visitors from family and friends whenever they wanted.

Care plans were based around the individual preferences of people as well as their medical needs. They gave a good level of detail for staff to reference if they needed to know what support was required. People received the care and support as detailed in their care plans. Details such as favourite foods in the care plans matched with what we saw on the day of our inspection, and with what people told us.

People had access to activities that met their needs. Although some people told us they wanted more to do, minutes of residents meetings recorded that the issue had been addressed multiple times to try to get people more involved in activities that interested them. The staff knew the people they cared for as individuals, and had supported them for many years.

People knew how to make a complaint. Feedback form a relative said, “If I ever have any needs or suggestions I know I can always ring and visit to discuss with the manager.” The policy was in an easy to read format to help people and relatives know how to make a complaint if they wished. No complaints had been received since our last inspection. Staff knew how to respond to a complaint should one be received.

Quality assurance records were kept up to date to show that the provider had checked on important aspects of the management of the home. Records of checks on health and safety, infection control, and internal medicines audits were all up to date. This was a small family owned business so the provider was at the home on a daily basis to give people and staff an opportunity to talk to them, and to ensure a good standard of care was being provided to people.

People had the opportunity to be involved in how the home was managed. Surveys were completed and the feedback was reviewed, and used to improve the service. One person said, “Staff are very good. They’re first class.” A staff member said, “You’ve got to take pride in your work. If the residents look nice and are happy you know you are doing your job right.”

During a check to make sure that the improvements required had been made

We carried out a review to see if the manager had responded to the non-compliance we had identified in our inspection visit on 3rd September 2013. During our review we spoke with the manager and we reviewed the risk assessments that had been developed to identify and control the risks to people from the use of bed rails.

We saw that the risks of harm that the manager had not considered at the time of our previous inspection had now been assessed. Controls had been put into place to manage those risks.

3 September 2013

During a routine inspection

We visited Hillbrow Residential Home to look at the care and welfare of people who used the service. We spoke to four people who used the service and four members of staff, including the registered manager. We observed the interactions between staff and the people who used the service. We did this for the people who we were unable to verbally communicate with, or who said they did not want to talk to use when we asked.

All the people we spoke with said they liked living there. Staff were seen to interact well with people. For example by having conversations with them about how they were and the activities they were doing. People appeared relaxed and happy.

We saw that systems were in place to ensure staff worked with the consent of people.

People who used the service and relatives had been involved in the planning of care. We saw that not all risks had been identified to protect the welfare and safety of people.

We looked around the house and saw that it was clean and tidy. People who used the service told us they were happy with the standards of cleanliness.

We saw that the manager carried out appropriate checks when they employed staff. This ensured staff were of good character and had the necessary skills and experience to do the job.

All the people we spoke with said they knew how to raise a complaint. They said that they had never felt the need to complain, but if they did they thought the manager would listen to what they said and take action.

23 October 2012

During a routine inspection

We made an unannounced visit to Hillbrow Residential Home. We looked at the care and welfare of people who used the service.

During our visit we spoke with four people who use the service and the three members of staff who were on duty.

We spent time observing people and how staff interacted and supported them. We looked around the location and saw communal areas, bathrooms and toilets (including en-suite) were clean and free from unpleasant odours.

People told us that 'it is very nice here' and 'the food is first class'. Another person told us "I like the people who live here' and 'I can buy and make my own food if I want.'

We saw staff talking and interacting with people in a friendly and respectful way. People were talking with staff about the things that interested them, for example articles in the newspaper or items seen on the television.

We saw written feedback from a paramedic which said 'staff knowledge of their service users is exceptional.' They also wrote 'all residents appear happy and very well supported/cared for.'