Updated 14 September 2026
About the service
Hillside is a residential care home providing accommodation and personal care for up to 20 people. At the time of our assessment, 13 people were living at the service.
Who the service is for
Hillside provides support to younger and older adults who have learning disabilities and autistic people.
Key findings
We carried out this assessment on 20 and 21 October 2026. This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard. Instead, our findings focus on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.
We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. We found the provider was working to this guidance.
People continued to receive good-quality care and support. Risks were assessed and managed in ways which enabled people to remain safe while doing things which mattered to them.
A full assessment of people’s needs was completed with input from family where appropriate and the local authority before a placement was agreed. This took account of people’s complex care needs and included a number of visits to the service. People’s needs were reviewed with their keyworkers on an ongoing basis and staff worked closely with the local authority.
Staff had received training in how to safeguard people and understood their responsibilities to report any concerns. A member of staff told us, “If I witnessed a safeguarding incident, I would report this to the management.” The registered manager reported safeguarding concerns to the local authority safeguarding team and worked with them to ensure people were safe.
There was a consistent and well-established staff team working at the service who had the skills, knowledge and training to support people safely. Staff understood people’s different communication styles and used this to communicate with them effectively. Each person had a keyworker who reviewed their care needs with them regularly.
People’s cultural and spiritual needs were met by the service provider. A person told us, “I go to a day centre every week and shopping, I go in a taxi with a carer. A vicar comes here and we do prayers.” We saw the evidence of a person attending different events organised by a local church.
People received medicines mostly as prescribed, however, protocols for administering medicines ‘as required’ (PRN) required improvements. Medicines audits were not always effective in identifying concerns. We raised this with the provider during the first day of our inspection, and by the second day the provider produced improved medicines audit. People told us they had no concerns regarding administration of medicines. One person told us, “I do take some medication, it’s alright no concerns with it.”
The provider focused on providing a safe environment which met all people’s needs. They identified some environmental issues, however, other issues such as lack of window restrictors in the conservatory remained unidentified. We brought this to the provider’s attentions and they provided us with reassurances window restrictors would be fitted without delay.
Staff worked hard to support people to have choice and control over their lives whenever possible. Every opportunity to involve people in decisions was taken. This practice ensured the ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance and principles were followed.
People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found that staff and management worked within the MCA. DoLS authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions they had choice, control and freedom over their lives.
The registered manager and deputy manager provided stable and effective leadership for the service. They had regular contact with people and staff receiving daily feedback from both. Staff felt listened to, able to share their views, and valued for the work they completed.
The provider maintained effective partnerships with the local community and relevant organisations, supporting a coordinated and collaborative approach to delivering high-quality care. One person’s advocate told us, “If I need care plans they will send them to me, they will involve me in the best interest meetings. Staff are professional, they have good rapport with people I see.”
The organisation’s vision and values were shared via the management team’s approach and conduct and within the induction and ongoing training provided. Quality systems were in place and used to improve the service. However, some quality assurance systems had to be improved during our visit.