Hilltop Court Nursing Home

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

Theproviderwas previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to dignity and respect. Not enough improvement was found at this assessment, and theproviderremained in breach of this regulation.​

This service scored 55 (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 treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity. Staff did not always treat colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

We observed some kind and caring interactions between people and staff. It was clear that staff knew people well and had formed good relationships. However, we also observed some more task-based interactions with some staff at busier times. Feedback from people and relatives was positive about how caring staff and management were.

Our observation outcomes were mixed in relation to treating people with dignity. Some people did not always look well kempt and had unclean fingernails and unclean clothing and footwear. We did not see specific, robust guidance for staff to action if people initially refused personal care. We were not assured that care records were accurate in relation to people receiving baths and showers on a regular basis. For example, we observed one person to have unclean hair and nails; however, their care records indicated they had had a shower and had their hair washed that morning. During lunchtime observations we saw support for people was mixed; some people were being assisted by engaging staff; however, we also observed instances where people were not always appropriately supported to eat and drink with dignity.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Whilst progress had been made under the new registered manager, further work was needed to ensure people and, where appropriate, their relatives were consistently involved in the development and review of care plans. As a result, records did not always fully reflect people’s views, preferences and desired outcomes. Some people’s bedrooms had been personalised by relatives; however, some other people’s bedrooms were sparse and lacked any personalisation.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Staff were mostly kind and caring during support and care delivery. However, we were not assured people were fully involved in all decisions about their care. For example, we saw no evidence people were consulted about decisions around what was on the daily menu for food and drinks as this was decided by the provider. However, kitchen staff told us they would make alternative meals for people. We were not assured that people who were nursed in bed, or chose to stay in their bedroom, received enough activity or staff time to ensure they received support that was meaningful and individual to them.

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

We reported our concerns to the registered manager around people not having call bells in their bedrooms. They told us most people living at the home did not have the capacity to use a call bell to summon help and they had introduced sensor beams; however, this blanket approach was not person-centred practice. Although, we did not have significant concerns about staffing levels, we did observe communal areas were sometimes unattended and we observed one person walking around their unit with only one shoe on for an extended period of time before staff assisted them to fully dress.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff.

The provider had made improvements since the last inspection in supporting staff wellbeing and enabling staff to carry out their roles effectively. Staff told us they were happy in their role and felt supported by the registered manager. One staff member told us, “[Registered manager] is a very good person and a listening ear.”

Staff did not raise any concerns with us during our inspection about their employment or the management of the home. Staff told us they were supported at work, and the registered manager told us about the wellbeing support offered to staff, including, employee of the month.