You are here

Archived: Hillcrest House Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 27 August 2016

Hillcrest House provides personal care support for up to five adults that have learning disabilities and/or autism spectrum disorder and may have challenging behaviour and/or mental health needs. This unannounced inspection took place on 23 June 2016 and at the time of our inspection there were five people using the service.

There were two registered managers in post, one of whom undertook the day to day management of the home and one who was also the registered provider. 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.

People felt safe in the home and received safe care and support. Relatives said that they had no concerns about people’s safety and we observed that people were comfortable in the home. Staff had an in depth understanding of their role in safeguarding people and they knew how to report concerns. Staffing levels ensured that people received the support they required at the times they needed it.

The recruitment practices were thorough and protected people from being cared for by staff that were unsuitable to work at the service. Staff received the training and support required to enable them to understand and meet the care needs of each person.

People were supported to take their medicines as prescribed. Records showed that medicines were obtained, stored, administered and disposed of safely. People were supported to maintain good health as staff had the knowledge and skills to support them and there was prompt access to healthcare services when needed.

People were fully involved in decisions about their care and support needs and this had a positive impact on their ability to be as independent as possible. There were formal systems in place to assess people’s capacity for decision making under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Staff provided people with information in the most appropriate format to enable them to make informed decisions and encouraged people to make their own choices.

Staff were passionate about the work they did and had very good relationships with the people who lived in the home. People interacted in a relaxed way with staff, and relatives consistently spoke about the positive impact living in the home had made to people’s lives.

Comprehensive care plans and risk assessments were in place detailing how people wished to be supported and had been produced in conjunction with people using the service. They provided information to staff about action to be taken to minimise any risks whilst allowing people to be as independent as possible.

People participated in a large and varied range of activities within the home, the local community and further afield. The atmosphere in the home was vibrant and people were enthusiastic about holidays and activities planned for the future.

Staff were aware of the importance of managing complaints promptly in line with the provider’s policy. People living in the home, their relatives and staff were confident that any issues would be addressed and that if they had concerns they would be listened to.

The service was well led and people’s relatives and staff had full confidence in the leadership of the registered manager. The provider ensured that the service was well supported and effective systems were in place to assess and monitor the quality of service provided.

Inspection areas



Updated 27 August 2016

The service was safe.

People felt safe and comfortable in the home and staff were clear on their roles and responsibilities to safeguard them.

Risk assessments were in place and were continually reviewed and managed in a way that enabled people to safely pursue their independence and receive safe support.

People were involved in the safe recruitment practices and staffing levels ensured that people�s care and support needs were safely met.

There were systems in place to manage medicines in a safe way and people were supported to take their prescribed medicines.



Updated 27 August 2016

The service was effective.

People were actively involved in decisions about their care and support needs and how they spent their day. Staff demonstrated their understanding of the Mental Capacity Act, 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

People received personalised care and support. Staff received bespoke and mandatory training to ensure they had the skills and knowledge to support people appropriately and in the way that they preferred.

Peoples physical and mental health needs were kept under regular review.

People were supported to access relevant health and social care professionals to ensure they received the care, support and treatment that they needed.



Updated 27 August 2016

The service was caring.

People had developed strong and positive relationships with staff that worked at the service.

People were encouraged to make decisions about how their support was provided and their privacy and dignity was protected and promoted.

There were positive interactions between people living at the house and staff. People and their relatives were happy with the support they received from staff.

Staff had a very good understanding of people�s needs.



Updated 27 August 2016

This service was responsive.

Thorough pre-admission assessments were carried out to ensure the service was able to meet people�s needs. People were given various opportunities to try the service and meet staff to ensure they were well supported throughout the moving in process.

People�s support plans were person centred and flexible and were promptly adapted to meet people�s changing needs.

People were supported to become more independent and had input in to decision making as much as they were able to. Staff respected people�s right to make their own decisions and supported them to reach their goals

People using the service and their relatives knew how to raise a concern or make a complaint and there was a transparent system in place for all feedback.



Updated 27 August 2016

This service was well-led.

A registered manager was in post and they were active and visible to people using the service and their relatives. They worked alongside staff and offered regular support and guidance.

The registered manager strived to include people in effective learning and development that would provide the knowledge and understanding they needed to live life more independently.

There were effective systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service and actions were completed in a timely manner.