Hillsborough Residential Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 67 (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 did not always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Before people moved into Hillsborough their needs were assessed to help ensure the service was able to meet those needs. Information gathered at assessment was used to develop care plans. However, one person had moved into the service approximately 3 weeks before the inspection; care plans had not been completed in a timely manner and there was limited information to guide staff on how to support them. Staff told us they were unable to locate the assessment information and had not been able to register the person with the local GP as they did not have their NHS number. This information was located during the inspection.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

Care plans for 2 people referred to Speech and Language Therapist (SALT) assessments which stated they required a soft diet. Staff were unable to locate the assessments to gather any further detail. They contacted the local SALT team who had no record of completing any assessments at the service. This meant we could not be assured the guidance in care plans was correct or necessary. Staff told us they would arrange for assessments to be completed

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Staff told us they worked well as a team and communicated with other professionals as necessary. Feedback from other professionals was positive. Comments included; “Staff are always friendly, welcoming, knowledgeable about client’s needs” and “The senior member of staff and owner I saw asked a couple of questions regarding queries they had and were open to suggestions on how to resolve them.”

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Staff supported people to move around independently in order to retain their mobility as much as possible. When people had been unwell staff showed they had high expectations for people and encouraged them to work towards getting their health back.

A chef told us how they tried to foster a healthy approach to dietary choices by talking to people about the pros and cons of different foods. Relatives said the food was good, one person commented; “The food is beautiful, there’s definitely enough.”

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Where it had been identified as necessary, staff monitored people’s health. For example, some people needed support to mitigate the risk of developing pressure areas. Records were completed to evidence this was completed as required.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The MCA requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible.

One person had been assessed as lacking capacity and a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards application had been submitted appropriately.

Most people had signed their care plans to say they consented to their care. Some of the consent forms were flagged as being out of date. Relatives told us staff routinely asked for consent before providing care. One relative told us their family member was not always ready to cooperate with some aspects of care, they told us staff managed this well and would go back later.