Hilltop Hall 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

People were being cared for in a kind and caring way, although the care delivered was not consistently personalised to reflect the individual’s preferences. People were generally supported and responded to in a timely way and the provider had begun to make some improvements in how they support the staff team with effective supervision and appraisal.

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.

People felt they were treated with kindness and compassion but staff. People spoke positively about the staff and said, “I can have a laugh with the staff.” Another person told us, “The staff are magnificent.”

Staff spoke positively about people at the service and understood the importance of treating people with dignity and respect. Improvements were noted in how people were treated by staff and the provider. Staff received training in dignity and respect. The management team had started completing some short observations of staff interactions with people to ensure good care was delivered.

Partner agencies told us they had witnessed kind and caring interactions between staff and people living at the service.

We observed positive interactions between people and staff.

People were not always treated as individuals as care plans lacked personalised detail to enable person centred care was delivered. People generally told us they felt well treated. One person commented, “They treat me like a human being and are very responsive to my needs.” People also said staff were discreet when supporting them. However, we also received external feedback that demonstrated shortfalls in the nail care people were provided and support and consideration to dignity following meals to ensure people were clean and free of food debris.

Staff spoke positively about people living at the service and appeared to have knowledge around how to support them as individuals. Staff knew how to support people with humour and kindness.

We observed that whilst staff were kind and knew people well, care was not always personalised to meet the person’s specific preferences.

The provider had not taken the action needed to ensure suitable process were implemented and effective to ensure people were treated as individuals. Care plans did not consistently reflect people as individuals or contain personalised details about likes, preferences and social story.

People told us choices were respected. One person told us they could have a shower when they wanted, but we noted this was not reflected as the experience for everyone. It was not clear how people were involved in more meaningful decisions about their life, and there were limited choices available to people in a number of areas including around eating.

The management team could not demonstrate how people were supported to make choices for themselves. For example, when people had cognitive impairments or spoke different languages there was limited evidence, they were supported to be involved in making choices.

One person had communication cards and translated phrases to be used referenced in their care plan however, these were not readily available in this person’s bedroom where they received all their daily care.

Care plans did not clearly outline how people should be involved in decision making about their lives and their care.

People felt supported and that their needs were responded to by staff. One person commented, “I know all the staff and together with the doctor they have supported me with bad times.” Where needs had been identified which required a person to go to hospital, families told us they were kept informed of what was happening.

Staff felt there were sufficient staffing levels to respond to people’s needs as staffing levels had not changed despite the occupancy and complexity of people’s needs at the service had decreased.

During our site visit we observed some instances where the nurse call bells were ringing for periods of time however, they were mostly responded to promptly. We saw people mainly receive the care they needed in a timely way.

Staff felt positive about the changes being made at the service since the last inspection. Staff told us they currently felt supported by the management team.

The provider had processes which ensured supervision for staff was taking place on a group basis when lessons learnt needed to be shared with the staff team. However, good and effective one to one supervision for staff were not in place to enable staff the opportunity for two-way communication including any concerns and development needs and full appraisal. This area of improvement had been identified on the action plan but had not been addressed in a timely way. This style of supervision had recently commenced at the service and the management team were looking at developing this further to include appraisals for staff.