You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 21 April 2020

Hill View is a residential care home providing personal care for up to six people. At the time of inspection, six people were living at the service. There is a second home on the same site that is separately registered. Both homes are run by the Regard Partnership, which is a national provider of care. People’s had various support needs associated with cerebral palsy, and epilepsy. People had complex communication needs and required staff who knew them well to meet their needs.

The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

The service applied the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent. They were encouraged to take part in daily living tasks with support from staff in areas such as laundry and cleaning.

People received support from staff who knew them very well as individuals. People’s care and support needs were assessed and reviewed regularly. This enabled them to receive care that was person-centred and reflected their needs and choices.

Staff supported people to take part in choosing activities to meet their individual needs and wishes. Some people loved train and bus rides. Others liked swimming, bowling and cinema trips. Staff ensured people had regular opportunities to use cafes and restaurants and to visit the bandstand at Eastbourne. Annual holidays were organised.

People were protected from the risks of harm, abuse or discrimination. Staff knew what actions to take if they identified concerns. The home was clean and tidy throughout. Enhanced cleaning had been instigated as a result of coronavirus and staff were thorough in relation to ensuring their own and people’s hands were kept clean. There were enough staff working to provide the support people needed, at times of their choice. Recruitment procedures ensured only suitable staff worked at the service.

In the absence of the registered manager who was on special leave at the time of inspection, there were good systems to ensure oversight of the service. Two registered managers from other services took it turn to provide cover and to share the role. Quality assurance systems were comprehensive and ensured all aspects of the running of the home were examined regularly, records were kept up to date and any actions resulting from audits were addressed swiftly.

Staff understood the risks associated with the people they supported. Risk assessments provided further guidance for staff about individual and environmental risks. People were supported to receive their medicines safely.

Staff received training that helped them to deliver the care and support people needed. This included specialist training in autism, epilepsy and person-centred active support. Staff attended regular supervision meetings and told us they were very well supported by the registered managers.

People's health and well-being needs were met. Where appropriate, staff supported people to attend health appointments, such as the GP or dentist, and appointments for specialist advice and support. People’s nutritional needs were assessed, and specialist diets were catered for. Menus were varied and well balanced.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in t

Inspection areas



Updated 21 April 2020

The service was safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.



Updated 21 April 2020

The service was effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.



Updated 21 April 2020

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.



Updated 21 April 2020

The service was responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.



Updated 21 April 2020

The service was well-led.

Details are in our well-led findings below.