Hilton Park - Oaklands

We found the following examples of good practice.

In line with recent changes to Government guidance, people living at Hilton Park – Oaklands could nominate up to two people to visit them, in their room, by appointment. There were also socially distanced garden visits taking place if people or their visitors preferred. Gaps between each visit helped prevent people encountering other visitors, staff or people from the service.

All visitors complied with the providers visiting policy. This included a temperature check, a rapid COVID-19 test, a health declaration and wearing supplied personal protective equipment (PPE). Visitors to the service, including health or social care professionals and contractors followed the providers visitors policy and completed the necessary checks before entering.

Staff also helped people to use computer tablets to video call their family and friends to promote their social well-being. The service had purchased new tablets at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic to support people with this if they did not have their own devices.

During our visit we also saw people being supported into the community for the first time since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Staff changed into their work clothes in a room on each unit. These rooms were called donning and doffing rooms, which is where staff also put on, took off and disposed of PPE. The service had two dedicated infection control leads. Staff had infection prevention and control training. Handwashing and PPE observation checks were completed on staff.

The building was clean and free from clutter. Windows were opened to promote good ventilation.

Hilton Park Oaklands provides nursing and personal care for up to 54 people, some of whom are living with Dementia. There are three units called Elm, Maple and Willow. Elm and Maple provide nursing care for people living with dementia. Willow provides nursing care for adults living with a range of conditions. All bedrooms have en-suite bathrooms and there are indoor and outdoor communal areas for people and their visitors to use.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

The provider had systems in place to manage risks and keep people safe from avoidable harm. Staff followed good practice guidelines to prevent the spread of infection and gave people their medicines safely.

Staff received training, supervision, guidance and support so that they could do their job well. They worked well as a team. Staff enjoyed working at Hilton Park – Oaklands. Both people and staff recognised that staff stayed at Hilton Park – Oaklands for a long time, and there was a low staff turnover.

People liked the staff that cared for them. Staff were kind and caring and made sure people’s privacy was respected. Hilton Park – Oaklands was people’s home and staff did everything they could to make people’s lives as comfortable and fulfilling as possible.

People, and their relatives were involved in making decisions on the care they wanted. Their preference for how staff delivered their care was recorded in their care plans.

The service was well managed by a manager, and a senior staff team including a deputy manager, clinical nurse leads and regular input from a regional director. The senior staff team were passionate about giving people a high-quality service.

Systems to monitor how well the home was running were carried out. Complaints and concerns were followed up to make sure action was taken to rectify the issue. People, staff and relatives were asked their view of the service and action was taken to change any areas they were not happy with.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was Good (published 07 July 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

At the last inspection, on 3 December 2014, the service was rated good. At this inspection we found the service remained good.

This unannounced inspection took place on 5 June 2017. There were 52 people living at the service at that time.

People were cared for by staff who provided care and treatment that ensured people's safety and welfare and took into account each person’s individual preferences. People were supported to manage their medicines safely. People were cared for by staff who had been recruited and employed only after appropriate checks had been completed.

Staff were sufficiently skilled, experienced and supported to enable them to meet people's needs effectively.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People were supported to maintain a balanced diet and received suitable food and fluid. People were supported to access healthcare when they required it.

People received care and support from staff who were thoughtful and caring. Staff treated people with respect and dignity. Staff knew the people they supported well, and understood, and met, their individual preferences and care needs. People were involved in planning their care. Care plans provided staff with sufficient guidance to provide consistent care to each person.

People were encouraged to develop individual interests and hobbies. Staff supported people to maintain existing, relationships that were important to them.

The provider continued to have a robust complaints procedure in place. The service was well managed. There were effective systems in place to monitor the quality of the service people received. Staff looked for ways to improve their knowledge and the service offered to people.

All the relatives we spoke with said the staff did an excellent job and the care people received was very good. Two relatives commented that they felt there were not enough staff. One relative said: 'I feel the staff have to complete a lot of paperwork at the expense of providing one to one care for people, and they often seem short of staff'. Another relative said: 'The care is very good, but the staff are often under pressure and there is little one to one time'.

Two relatives commented that there were issues with the laundry and things went missing or other people's clothing was put in their relative's room and sometimes clothing had been damaged.

One person told us they felt there was no-one to speak on their behalf, although they did feel able to talk with one specific member of staff. We spoke with the manager who said an independent advocate would be requested as soon as possible.

During this inspection on 7 February 2013, we used our Short Observation for Inspection (SOFI) tool to observe the way people on Elm Avenue were treated by staff during lunch time. We did not speak with people directly about the care and support they received.

We saw that a number of improvements had been made. People could choose where they ate their meal and with whom they shared a table. Each person was given greater choice about what they ate and drank. Staff treated people with respect, assisted people who needed their help and supported people wherever possible to be as independent as they could be. Records gave staff detailed guidance on each person's needs related to meals and mealtimes, and enabled more accurate monitoring of how much food and fluid each person had taken.