Hilton Park Care Centre

We found the following examples of good practice:

Staff made sure that people were protected against the transmission of infection from visitors by scheduling visits, limiting areas that could be accessed and being available to escort visitors. Staff put appropriate actions into place to make sure people were admitted safely into the service.

Staff had enough personal protective equipment, such as masks, gloves and aprons, and had supported people so that they also understood the need for this.

Regular COVID-19 testing was carried out to make sure action could be taken quickly to keep people safe.

The home was clean and staff had increased cleaning of frequently touched surfaces to reduce the risk of transmission of infection. Staff adapted the layout of communal areas to support people to social distance from each other.

The provider made sure staff and the manager received enough support during the pandemic and when additional staff were needed. Additional risk assessments were completed for staff at increased risk of catching COVID-19 and actions put into place to reduce risks to them.

Hilton Park Care Centre is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

There was a registered manager at the home. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

Staff knew how to keep people safe, how to respond to possible harm and how to reduce risks to people. There were enough staff who had been recruited properly to make sure they were suitable to work with people. Medicines were stored and administered safely. Regular cleaning made sure that infection control was maintained. Lessons were learnt about accidents and incidents and these were shared with staff members to ensure changes were made to staff practise, to reduce further occurrences.

People’s care was planned and delivered in line with good practice guidance. People were cared for by staff who had received the appropriate training and had the skills and support to carry out their roles. People received a choice of meals, which they liked, and staff supported them to eat and drink. They were referred to health care professionals as needed and staff followed the advice professionals gave them. Adaptations were made to ensure people were safe and able to move around their home as independently as possible. Staff understood and complied with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives. Staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the home supported this practice.

Staff were caring, kind and treated people with respect. People were listened to and were involved in their care and what they did on a day to day basis. People’s right to privacy was maintained by the actions and care given by staff members.

People’s personal and health care needs were met and care records provided staff with clear, detailed guidance in how to do this. People were able to take part in social events and spend time with their peers. A complaints system was in place and there was information so people knew who to speak with if they had concerns. Staff had guidance about caring for people at the end of their lives and information was available to show how each person wanted this.

Staff were supported by the registered manager, who had identified areas for improvement and developed a plan to address these. The provider’s monitoring process looked at systems throughout the service, identified issues and staff took the appropriate action to resolve these. People’s, relatives and staff views were sought, with positive results.

Further information is in the detailed findings below

This unannounced inspection took place on 4 February 2016. There were 76 people receiving care at that time.

The service had a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Staff were only employed after the provider had carried out comprehensive and satisfactory pre-employment checks. Staff were well trained, and well supported, by their managers. There were sufficient staff to meet people’s assessed needs. Systems were in place to ensure people’s safety was effectively managed. Staff were aware of the procedures for reporting concerns and of how to protect people from harm.

People received their prescribed medicines appropriately and medicines were stored safely. People’s health, care and nutritional needs were effectively met. People were provided with a balanced diet and staff were aware of people’s dietary needs.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and report on what we find. We found that there were formal systems in place to assess people’s capacity for decision making and applications had been made to the authorising agencies for people who needed these safeguards. Staff respected people choices and staff were aware of the key legal requirements of the MCA and DoLS.

People received care and support from staff who were kind, caring and respectful to the people they were caring for. People and their relatives had opportunities to comment on the service provided and people were involved in every day decisions about their care.

Care records were detailed and provided staff with sufficient guidance to provide consistent care to each person. Changes to people’s care was kept under review to ensure the change was effective. There was a varied programme of events for people to join in with. However, not all people were supported to spend their time in meaningful ways and there were limited opportunities for some people to access the local community.

The registered manager was supported by a staff team that including registered nurses, care workers, and ancillary staff. The service was well run and staff, including the registered manager, were approachable. People and relatives were encouraged to provide feedback on the service in various ways both formally and informally. People’s views were listened to and acted on. Concerns were thoroughly investigated plans actioned to bring about improvement in the service.

Some people had commented on the atrium being cold. The manager said it was difficult to gauge the temperature and at night staff often opened the windows as it got very warm. They did not, however, remember to close them. The manager said anyone who felt cold had extra blankets and would ensure small heaters would be available.

One person told us: "The home is very nice. I don't mind it at all. I've got nothing to do but I like it placid. I don't know of any activities". We were told that there were three activities co-ordinators who all work full time. People told us of trips they go on, games and crafts they do and entertainment that is put on throughout the year.

We found there were sufficient staff to meet people's needs, but the manager must ensure staff in the units had appropriate knowledge and skills.

People told us that staff treat them with respect and maintain their privacy and dignity. We saw this in practice during our inspection. People or their family members had been increasingly involved in deciding on the care people needed. Care records gave staff clear guidance on people's needs and how people preferred those needs to be met. Risks were assessed and risk management plans put in place so that people were kept as safe as possible. Medicines were managed well so that people received their medicines safely and as prescribed.

People told us how much they liked the staff. There were adequate staff on duty on each shift who had all undertaken a range of training relevant to their role. Staff told us they enjoyed working at this home. One said, 'All the staff are team players ' everyone helps each other.'

The provider had an effective complaints process in place, which was prominently displayed. People we spoke with told us they knew how to complain, and to whom, but they had not had any reason to do so. One person said, 'I have no complaints. I'd complain to the manager but I haven't had to so far.' Another told us, 'They are very fair and respect our opinions.'