Hillcroft Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained changed to requires improvement.

This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 61 (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 were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Care plans did not always contain sufficient personalised information to ensure people were consistently treated as individuals. Several ‘About Me’ sections were incomplete or lacked detail about people’s backgrounds, preferences, routines and what was important to them. This meant staff did not always have access to the information needed to understand each person’s identity, life history or what mattered most to them. Incomplete personal profiles limited staff’s ability to deliver truly person centred care and to tailor support in a way that promoted people’s individuality. Improvements were needed to ensure care plans captured meaningful, person specific information so that care could be shaped around each person’s unique needs and preferences.

The provider informed us some of the missing information was the result of an error in their electronic recording system. They have told us this has been reported to the external system provider to be resolved.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

We saw how people were supported to access the correct healthcare provisions for them in the local community, including opticians’ appointments, GP access and speech and language therapy. Appropriate information was shared with relevant agencies by the provider to support with assessments of need.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Where needed, staff supported people to understand care decisions, and families were kept informed about changes to care. We observed staff getting down to people’s levels to speak with them when providing assistance. We were told how staff used google translate to support with communication for a person who’s first language was not English.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

There had not been any recent resident meetings as the registered manager told us these were poorly attended when planned, however, she used an open-door policy to support communication with relatives and staff. People told us they felt able to share concerns with the registered manager.

The registered manager told us the service had sought feedback from residents, family and friends via a survey. We saw the ‘You said, We did’ document which was completed in May 2025, this outlined the key themes raised and what had been done in response.

The complaints policy was not easily accessible whilst we were onsite, this was due to renovation work meaning items kept near the front door had been moved. We were told the complaints policy is usually kept here for easy access of relatives, friends and visitors. There were no complaints to view, however, we saw several compliments from relatives, friends and visitors.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

We saw people were supported to access external health care when needed. People’s care and support was delivered in a timely manner, one person told us staff check in on them throughout the day, which supports in them not feeling isolated or alone.

There was ongoing renovation work, plans were shared with us regarding making the environment more personable and accessible. The provider has shared with us evidence of ongoing works.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

The provider had an equality and diversity policy in place to protect people and staff against discrimination and nursing staff had completed equality and diversity training. We observed care support being more task focused than person centred.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could haveenough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

The service had a clear process and procedure in place to support people at the end of their lives. We saw end of life care plans were completed, providing information for important life changes, which allowed people time to make informed decisions regarding their end-of-life plans. We found for 2 people, although an end-of-life care plan had been completed, this had not been reflected into a full care plan, which meant important details were not consistently captured across all documentation.

We saw feedback from relatives which thanked staff for the ‘wonderful care and kindness’ shown to their loved one and their family.