• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Hillcrest Manor Nursing Home

Reabrook, Minsterley, Shrewsbury, Shropshire, SY5 0DL (01743) 791851

Provided and run by:
Kelly Residential Limited

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

17 February 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people using the service, because the people using the service had complex needs which meant they were not able to tell us their experiences.

We found the service had good systems in place to ensure the safe management of medicines. We found good medicine administration and disposal records meant that we were able to see that people using the service were having their medicines administered as prescribed. We found that medicines were being stored safely and the service had good systems in place to monitor the management of these medicines. This meant that people using the service were protected against the risks associated with medicines.

7 October 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Our last inspection of 10 July 2013 found Hillcrest Manor was non-compliant with five outcomes, care and welfare, safeguarding people, infection control, medicines management and how the service monitored quality. During this inspection, we found improvements had been made in four outcomes. In relation to medicines management although improvements had been made we had minor concerns about how people's medication was managed. We will be asking the provider to write to us to tell us how they intend to put this right.

We observed positive interactions between the staff and the people who lived in the home and also between staff and relatives visiting. We spoke with people who used the service, their relatives and the staff during our inspection. Relatives told us, 'All the staff are wonderful and very helpful. They come when they are needed'. One person who lived at the home had not wanted to be assisted to get up earlier in the day. Their relative told us, 'Mum is being washed now and it's lunch but that's ok!' This showed that people's choice and wishes were respected.

Care plans were written in a way that ensured people were given choice about living their lives.

People who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse from happening.

People were not protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider did not have appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.

We reviewed information from other agencies that had visited the home to monitor infection control arrangements. It was considered that people who used the service were protected from the risk of infection because appropriate guidance had been followed.

We looked at the provider's quality assurance systems and found a range of monitoring processes in place to monitor the quality of the service provided.

21 August 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We completed this inspection because our inspection of 10 July 2013 found that the service was not compliant with Regulation 9 of the Health and Social Care Act. This was because the provider had not ensured that people's hydration needs were being met. There was no system for collecting and analysing fluid intake information for people who had been identified as being at risk.

We reviewed this area of people's care and found that improvements had been made. There was a system in place that people were assessed and monitored with regard to their individual hydration needs. Staff reported the system is working well. Relatives and friends of people who lived at the home told us they were happy with the care of their relative/friend received and that they had no concerns about their hydration.

10 July 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

At our last inspection April 2013 we had raised concerns with the way people's care was delivered, failure to report incidents into the safeguarding of vulnerable adults, lack of appropriate infection control practices, poor recruitment procedures and staff training and supervision.

We re-inspected these areas at our July 2013 inspection. Our conclusions were mixed.

Although people's care plans had been reviewed, we found that people were not receiving appropriate care based on an assessment of their needs. Not all information about people's needs was included or correctly recorded in care plans. For example people's fluid intake, or the minimum amount of fluid someone should be expected to drink in a day was not consistently recorded.

We found that the reporting of incidents into the safeguarding of vulnerable adults process had improved. However we found two incidents that had not been reported that potentially placed people at risk.

The home did not have effective systems in place to manage the risk of the spread of infection.

We found that systems to manage people's medication administration were not robust enough to ensure that people received the medication prescribed for them.

There was an improved robust recruitment procedure in place.

Staff received regular training and supervision.

The provider did not have an effective system to regularly asses and monitor the quality of the service that people received.

We returned to the home on 29 July 2013 following concerns that we had been made aware of. Our findings were the same as our previous visit.

9 April 2013

During a routine inspection

At the time of the inspection there were 39 people living at Hillcrest Manor. This consisted of 21 people in the nursing unit and 18 people in the dementia unit (Granary). Not all the people we met were able to verbally tell us about the care they received and their experience of living in the home. Therefore we observed how staff interacted and supported people, to enable us to make a judgement on how their needs were being met.

Everyone we spoke to told us they were satisfied with their care although everyone raised the issue of constant manager changes and several people told us the home appeared to be short staffed.

During our visit we observed poor moving and handling practice. Staff told us that care plans were 'not good.' We were therefore unable to ascertain if an appropriate level of care was being provided, in line with their assessed needs.

We found that systems were not in place to protect vulnerable people from abuse. The provider had not followed reporting procedures following an allegation of abuse.

We found that previous managers had not carried out robust checks to ensure that staff appointed were suitable to work with vulnerable people. The home could not demonstrate that staff had been inducted to ensure that they had the skills and competencies required to carry out their roles effectively. The interim manager had commenced work the day before our inspection and acknowledged the service shortfalls.

18 April 2012

During a routine inspection

We visited the service on 18 April 2012 and used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people who used the service, because people had complex needs and were not all able to tell us their views.

We spoke with five people, one visitor, four staff, two managers and the provider. We observed interactions for one hour using an observational tool designed for the Care Quality Commission (CQC), and we observed medication administration. We looked at care records for four people. We also looked at records of accidents and complaints. We saw the provider's quality surveys completed by people and relatives, records of meetings with relatives and staff as well as records about the running of the home.

People told us that the home was 'all right', and 'was improving'. In the provider's own surveys most people and relatives were satisfied with their involvement in care and treatment, as well as with food and activities.

People we observed had appropriate support when they needed or requested it. People were supported in sensitive, discreet ways which encouraged their involvement in making choices and respected their privacy.

Care and treatment was delivered in the way people wanted, and protected their health and wellbeing. For those unable to share their preferences, detailed records gave staff the information they required.

Medicines were stored safely and people received their medicines as prescribed.

Staff were trained to recognise and report abuse within the service or to outside agencies. However the provider failed to respond appropriately to recent allegations of abuse made by people by not seeking advice or making a referral to the local authority to ensure thorough investigation and protection.

We found that the provider complied with a Warning Notice we served in February 2012 so that people were supported by safe, fit and suitably qualified staff and managers who had appropriate recruitment checks.

People and relatives had many ways to comment on care, treatment and quality of the service and their comments and complaints were usually acted upon.

Staff had more opportunities to develop skills to improve care, support and treatment people experienced.

Managers had monitoring and communication systems which they used daily to keep people healthy and safe. The provider was developing formal systems to monitor and address potential health and safety risks.

6 February 2012

During an inspection in response to concerns

We did not talk to the people who live in this home about the outcomes that this inspection focused on. We did talk to a group of people in one of the lounges about their views of the care that the home provides. One told us that it was "Very good" whilst another said that the staff were "Very attentive; I've no complaints".

8 March 2011

During an inspection in response to concerns

We talked with the people who live in this home and they told us that they were always asked about how they would like to spend their time and what they would like to eat and drink. They also told us told us that the staff had discussed and explained the risks, benefits and options of their care and treatment.

They told us that they are encouraged and enabled by the staff to take part in a number of activities.

They told us how their care and health are monitored by health and social care professionals.

They said that should they have any concerns they feels able to talk to either the manager or one of the staff that support them.