Hillcroft Care 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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 65 (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 always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

People told us staff were caring. Comments included, “The kind nature of the carers is brilliant and can’t be taught,” and, “I haven’t met a carer here that I don’t like, they are a really good team.”

Staff spoke with care and compassion about the people they supported and demonstrated a shared commitment to providing good care. Our observations showed staff were caring, however, transactions were task focused and not always person centred.

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.

People were generally supported in a kind and respectful manner. Care plans were not always person centred and did not reflect people’s individual backgrounds and preferences. Observations showed us staff interactions were often task focussed with little meaningful conversation with residents.

We saw there were a range of activities planned across 3 days a week, and the activities coordinator told us they were working with people to understand which activities they enjoyed and how best to support people with their social and emotional wellbeing. Activities were limited during our visits; we were told there had been a period where activities staff were not available, we found there were no meaningful activities for people during this time.

A staff member told us people’s birthdays are celebrated.

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.

People were offered some opportunities to make choices about their daily lives, such as selecting from available meal options. However, these practices were not consistently embedded across the service. We found there was limited evidence to show people had consented to all aspects of their care. During our visit we observed a member of staff putting on a film in the lounge without discussing with people if they wanted to watch a film or offer options of film choice.

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

People told us they received timely support and did not have to wait long when they needed assistance. They said staff were approachable and responsive. During our assessment, we tested a call bell and observed that a member of staff responded promptly.

This showed there were enough staff available, and they were attentive to people’s immediate needs, helping ensure people felt well supported.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff told us they felt well supported by leaders. One staff member said, “I feel very supported by the registered manager and deputy manager, if I ever have an issue I know I can go to them or ring them, they are always willing to help.”

We saw evidence regular supervisions were taking place for staff and frequent team meetings were being held. This gave staff structured opportunities to discuss their practice, raise concerns and receive feedback.

New staff received an appropriate induction, and were supported by experienced colleagues, however, we highlighted to the registered manager that training for new nursing staff on the disposal of controlled drugs required improvement, as this process was not known by the newest staff member.