Hill View

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 71 (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 did not always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People’s needs were assessed prior to their admission to the service. Care plans were written from the initial assessment. The registered manager and deputy manager were responsible for the review and the auditing of the care plans. Whilst there was some detailed information on how staff would support people, we found it wasn’t consistent throughout the plans. For example, where a person had communication difficulties there was no information how they made staff aware of their needs.

We spoke with the registered manager who agreed that they would include this information in the care plan. Although when we spoke with staff, they were able to tell us how the person communicated with them. People told us staff had discussed their care needs with them.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

People’s care preferences and wishes were taken into consideration when planning their care. Staff worked with other health professionals in a timely way to support people care needs. People were positive about the food and told us they were given choices but could always ask for something else if they did not enjoy or want the choices on offer.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

There was a good approach to planning and coordinating people’s care and treatment.Regular handover discussions and team meetings ensured information was shared amongst the team.

Staff had established positive working relationships with partner agencies, to achieve the best possible outcomes for people. Referrals and requests for professional advice were made promptly whenever concerns arose. Documented evidence confirmed staff followed the guidance provided by healthcare professionals. For example, a dietician had given them advice on how to plan and prepare a person’s diet to ensure it was soft and easy for them to eat.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Care plans showed that people had access to local healthcare services. Families and relatives told us that staff supported people to attend appointments if they were not able to go due to other commitments. One person told us, “I have seen the Doctor here and they do keep on top of my health needs.” Another person said, “A chiropodist comes in to do my toenails.”

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

The provider had systems and processes that ensured the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) was followed effectively, to support people who lacked capacity to make specific decisions about their care. Mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions were completed following the principles of the MCA, to ensure decisions made on behalf of people were made lawfully.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA. In care homes, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People that were assessed as requiring a DoLS had these in place.

Staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and understood its principles. Staff respected people’s choices and were receptive when people shared their views and wishes.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

The provider had systems and processes that ensured the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) was followed effectively, to support people who lacked capacity to make specific decisions about their care. Mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions were completed following the principles of the MCA, to ensure decisions made on behalf of people were made lawfully.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA. In care homes, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People that were assessed as requiring a DoLS had these in place.

Staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and understood its principles. Staff respected people’s choices and were receptive when people shared their views and wishes.