You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 14 September 2018

The inspection took place on 9 July 2018 and was unannounced. At the last inspection May 2016, we rated the home overall as ‘Good.’ At this inspection we found the provider continued to have an overall rating of ‘Good.’

Hillside is a care service and has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

Hillside has a registered manager. 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.

Hillside is situated in Ilkeston. It is a purpose built bungalow, with a safe and secure garden. The property is close to shops and amenities which are utilised by the people living at the home. Each person has their own bedroom with communal bathroom facilities. There are shared spaces which include the lounge, a dining room and a kitchen. The service is registered for two people and at the time of our inspection two people were living in the service.

People were supported to achieve their aspirations in a range of ways which supported a person centred approach. Each person was supported to embrace life and encouraged to live as independently as they were able. The service had strong positive links with health care professionals who rated the service highly in the way people were supported. There was a positive relationship between people living at the service, with the local community shops and leisure opportunities.

People who used the service were at the heart of everything that the service did. Staff and management were always thinking of new ways to enable people to participate or to try new activities. All the professionals and relatives involved in people's care confirmed that the service could not be any better and how much the people had benefited from them living at Hillside.

Families and those important to people were involved in the planning of the care and had been encouraged to contribute to the way in which the person was supported. Care was person centred and tailored to each individual. People were supported to express themselves and private time was respected.

The service enabled positive outcomes for people. The provider was involved with the development of a national initiative to try and prevent the over medication of people with learning disabilities and / or autism and this ethos was firmly embedded within the service. People had benefited from this approach and the difference in their anxiety management had enabled them to participate in other activities and life choices which they had previously been unable to access.

There was a culture of positive risk taking, relatives and professionals told us people had thrived in this environment in having a fulfilling life but they were still supported to stay safe. This involved a range of ways to support people to protect them from harm and staff had received appropriate training.

Risks were managed and people were supported when they expressed themselves through behaviours which challenge. There was a dedicated team who supported people through the planned stages of support, which was monitored to enable the best approach to be taken on each occasion. There was enough staff to support people’s needs and there was flexibility to increase staffing when required.

The open approach of managers and staff enabled lessons to be learnt when things went wrong, or when reviewing a planned approach. The home was protected from the risk of infection. People had access to a hot tub and measures were in place to manage any potential infection control issues.

People were able to make decisions and their own choices. There was guidance to support staff to follow best practice for people’s disability or illness. Staff had received specific training which was relevant to the person’s individual needs and the supporting role they provided. Any new and emerging training been provided when it was identified.

There was support to provide people with their nutritional and hydration needs. Their choices were supported to include how people required their meals and the frequency. This enabled people to retain some elements of independence and when people required additional support this was provided. Health care professionals had been consulted to support people’s health care needs and any guidance was followed and reviewed to ensure the support continued to meet the person’s needs.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Staff used a variety of methods to support people to make choices with their daily decisions and tasks.

Staff had established positive relationships with people. The registered manager was passionate in developing the skills of staff to support each person. Staff were given training, peer support and time to develop relationships with people. We observed the relationship between people had been established and this promoted them to make their daily choices. If required people could access an advocate to provide support and guidance on decision making. People’s privacy and dignity was promoted.

Without exception all those we spoke with felt the home was well led and that the open culture continued to promote values to aspire to. The registered manager understood their responsibilities as a registered manager with CQC and followed any required aspects to meet the regulations. Staff felt supported by the registered manager who used a range of methods to obtain people’s views.

Partnerships had been developed with health and social care professionals to support the staffs skills and the support networks for people. Audits were used to monitor key activities within the service and to help drive improvements to the care and support provided to people.

Inspection areas



Updated 14 September 2018

The service was safe.

People who used the service were protected by staff who understood the systems and processes in place to minimise the risk of abuse.

Risk associated with people�s care and support were managed safely whist promoting independence. There were consistent staff who had the skills to meet people�s individual needs and preferences.

There were effective systems in place for the safe handling of medicines and any medicine to support anxiety was used to the minimum.

People were protected from the risk of infection. New items of possible risk had been identified and measures put in place.



Updated 14 September 2018

The service was effective

People were supported by staff who were skilled in meeting people's needs and received on-going training and development to enable them to deliver the most effective service.

People's rights were protected, staff had knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act and understood the principles of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards to support people in the least restrictive way possible.

People received ongoing healthcare support from a range of healthcare professionals and advice and guidance was followed.

People were supported to eat and drink and their dietary needs met.

The environment had been adapted to support individual�s needs.



Updated 14 September 2018

The service was caring

Staff used different methods to enable people to express their needs.

People important to them had also been consulted so that the care was delivered to a high standard.

Positive relationships existed between people who used the service, their relatives and staff. Independence was encouraged to enable people ty to live the life they chose.

People's rights to privacy and dignity were valued and respected.



Updated 14 September 2018

The service was responsive

People's care was based around their individual goals and their

specific personal needs and aspirations. People were being

empowered and enabled to feel a part of their community, and

to achieve their goals.

People�s care plans were person centred and covered all areas of each person�s needs and preferences. Their individual life wishes and aspirations had been encouraged and achieved.

Relatives knew how to raise a concern or make a complaint and people made their feelings known. There was a visible complaint

system in place which ensured that any concerns were dealt with

in a timely manner.



Updated 14 September 2018

The service was well led

Everyone without exception felt the needs of people were at the centre of the home. The atmosphere was open and people felt at home.

There was a clear vision to embed a strong commitment to deliver a high standard of personalised care.

People�s views had been considered in creative ways. Audits had been used to measure areas of care and to drive improvements and changes or to reduce any identified risks. Governance systems were integral to the home and all staff understood their responsibilities to contribute to them.

Partnerships had been developed and strong relationships had been established with professionals. The registered manager understood their requirements in relation to the regulations.