Hillsborough Residential Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good: This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 68 (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 made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Staff knew people well and were able to recognise quickly if anyone was unwell or feeling low in mood. People told us they were aware of their care plans and were happy with how care was provided. Care plans contained information about people’s backgrounds and the things that mattered to them. This supported the delivery of person-centred care. For example, one person’s care plan recorded that classical music was important to them as; “I find it relaxing.”

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Health professionals, who visited the service regularly, told us staff worked well with them and acted on any advice given. One commented; “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 supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Care plans included information about people’s communication needs, for example if they used hearing aids or needed glasses for reading.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care.

There were no resident and relative meetings taking place. These can provide a platform for people to express their opinions on the care provided. However, we saw staff spoke to people frequently and as a matter of course, about how their support was organised.

There was no evidence people had been involved in care plan updates. People told us they knew they had ‘books’ but not what was in them. Relatives said they were not aware of regular updates of the care plans.

Relatives said they would be confident raising concerns, but not all were confident action would be taken. One commented; “I don’t think I would be listened to very well if I made a complaint, I don’t think anything would change.” However, another told us; “If I had a problem, I would know who to contact. I queried that they had not seen a chiropodist and within a few days they got the chiropodist in to see [pronoun].”

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People were able to see a GP when they needed to. A GP had weekly telephone meetings with a manager or the senior in charge. If required, a health care practitioner and/or the GP would follow up these calls with a visit to the service.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

We were concerned that people’s experiences were not always fully taken into account when concerns were investigated. We spoke to the provider about a particular complaint that had been raised by a person living at Hillsborough. They told us the person was often confused and had raised a concern in the past which they were unable to substantiate. Because of this perceived unreliability they had not attempted to ask the person about their more recent experience.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

When people had expressed preferences for their care at the end of their life this was recorded. Some people had been asked what arrangements they wanted for their funeral. One person had stated; “I would like music at my funeral, cheerful and foot tapping.” This depth of information showed people’s thoughts in this area were sought out and recorded so their wishes could be respected.